Cherry-picking one item to quibble about from your fascinating post -

I see exchanges as a temporary (evil) necessity because many people can't or won't let go of fiat yet. I hope exchanges evolve soon into decentralized entities, but even decentralized exchanges could perhaps do whatever they wanted with "our" funds once they have the keys. Thus, I'd hope even decentralized exchanges are just an evolutionary step on the way to a peer-to-peer environment.

When and if transparent peer-to-peer transactions are the norm, I imagine most fiat legacy systems will appear odd, possibly including systems to enable credit transactions - I speculate that we will be surprised at which ones survive and which ones disappear. I'm old enough to remember a non-credit based economy, when "everyone knew" that credit was bad. Now "everyone knows" credit-based systems are a big improvement, yet "everyone knows" that somehow all the money flows into a few centralized hands who somehow still manage to generate massive debt for all. I'm wary of such certainties, having noticed that they only seem to last for a generation or two, then get replaced by the next certainty.

For example, you noted upthread that there is no need for a grocery store clerk to reverse a transaction when instead they can generate offsetting transactions to make things right. With that one insight, a classic "crypto is bad because it cannot do X" certainty-argument is demolished forever (until some troll brings it up again).

Another certainty-trap, I submit, is the notion that crypto requires blockchains. You make strong points about the present weaknesses of blockchain technology, but I doubt that crypto will use the technology in its weak form for much longer.