This is actually one of the reasons I prefer ChipMixer to CoinJoins. The latter are too obvious on-chain, at least when using popular methods like Wasabi Wallet.
Not sure I follow your logic here? Although it is impossible to
link coins which have come from ChipMixer with coins which have been sent to ChipMixer, it is trivial to
identify coins as having come from ChipMixer, given their very characteristic chip creation transactions. If an exchange wanted to ban all deposits from ChipMixer, they could do easily.
That's not quite as trivial as you make it sound, and could be disastrous for fungibility. There are very few CoinJoins on the network, so in my opinion they are low hanging fruit. I also think participating in Wasabi CoinJoins is more likely to mean
directly transacting with DNM outputs, which may have some relevance in cases like these.
Paxful is another example. Too many services have been freezing accounts for CoinJoin activity over the past year to say the distinction is trivial.
This whole thing made me thinking there are two different directions for crypto industry to develop into:
1 - close to original way, decentralized, anonymous, less controllable and etc.
2 - close to current banking way, more centralized, less anonymous, more controllable and etc.
I think we as active participants of this crypto world should always be aware which service do we use - if you are pro-1way user you should choose accordant service, same thing applies to pro-2way users