I think you misspelled unacceptable. Anonymous donations are a massive source of corruption, which is why they tend to be capped by law (and even then, I'm sure a lot of bad people manage to get around it).
Political money needs total transparency.
(Unless you meant "more acceptable to the general public for average transactions"; in which case I agree, but I suspect it will be the opposite for governments and law enforcement agencies...)
As for donations, it's still good. Instead of having vast amount of cash flow unnoticed as bribes/corruption, now you atleast know that the politician received that amount of money. I don't see how it is worse that normal cash.if one can cap amount of anonymous donations with banks and cash, why not do the same here?
Blockchain payments are tracked, so are bank movements; that's not the problem. The problem with blockchain solutions (well, one of many) is that they're pseudonymous, so authorities have to work to demonstrate that account X is linked to person A. Compare with the regular banking system, where every account must have a real identity attached: from the government's perspective, banks are so much better, and they already work (through Visa/MasterCard/Amex). Governments have absolutely no incentive to accept or push an anonymous digital currency. None whatsoever. The more anonymous a currency is (and this one is a bit more anonymous than blockchains), the worse it looks from the perspective of the state.
"Actual transaction costs are estimated around 0.001 cent/tx (at high transaction rates, amortized over billions of transactions, excluding migration costs). Note that this is an early estimate -- and could thus easily be 10x higher." [1]
Transactions costing singular cents [2], and very soon fractions of a cent [3], are already doable on public rollups providing actual control of your own funds, with escape hatches in case the system sequencer falls over [4]. These are, of course, still under heavy development. If privacy is a requirement, there's a zk-rollup for that (or, just use Monero). Not to mention support for social recovery.
This is a very PoS-Ethereum-centric (and L2-scaling-centric) view. There are even cheaper chains that trade L1 decentralization for faster blocktimes, instant finality, and/or much cheaper fees.
Your wallet stores digital coins and thus ultimately your computer holds your balance. The exchange keeps funds matching all unspent coins in a settlement account.
What if my wallet is lost?
Since the digital coins of value in your wallet are anonymized, the exchange can not assist you in recovering a lost or stolen wallet. Just like with a physical wallet for cash, you are responsible for keeping it safe.
The risk of losing a wallet can be mitigated by making backups or keeping the balance reasonably low.[1]
Ah. This is Chaum's DigiCash, from 1990.[2] A good idea, too early.
It's a system where coins are protected against double-spending by a database back-end. Which is how some centrally issued cryptocurrencies actually work.
The half-anonymity is interesting. The recipient is not anonymous, but the sender is. That may make it a politically acceptable substitute for cash.
It has the nice property that, unlike debit cards, etc., the recipient can't take more of your money than you give them.
[1] https://taler.net/en/faq.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiCash