Am I the only one here who's going to question the context of Vitalik standing in front of that particular slide? Personally, I have no idea when or where that presentation was or what he was saying at that moment. Thus it's very hard for me to draw any conclusions from a single picture like that.
Imagine getting paid to Do a job in BTC. Then 1 month later it loses 20% value, then the month after another 20%. This obviously is way too volatile for most people, especially those that depend on their pay check. Hence why stable coins are important.
That's not why stablecoins are important at all. First of all, I doubt you know anybody who gets their paycheck in bitcoin, let alone in something like USDT. Second, the only purpose that I can see for stablecoins is to protect against volatility
on exchanges (not in real life like your example), in between trades when you're waiting for a buying opportunity. But I'd love to hear your counterargument if you see this.
But let's assume that Vitalik was arguing for all of those points shown on his slide; I agree that the current financial system does indeed serve most people quite well--at least as far as having checking accounts and basic banking functions available to them. That's why we haven't seen people clamoring to adopt bitcoin, nor a groundswell of outrage that their debit cards don't work or that it's too costly to send money to others through services like PayPal. If you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that's true no matter how much you love bitcoin.