> i've been hearing this "Gov would never let crypto live"... but i keep waiting?

I think the first step is to narrow what role/purpose of "crypto" we're trying to consider, that a government would or wouldn't permit to "live".

For example, imagine there's a 100% government-run system with only "official" transaction signing nodes and everyone's public key is on-file along with their real identity. That would be "cryptocurrency" in a technological sense, but clearly not the political change some people are interested in.

Next there's the economic distinctions like the unit of account [0] versus medium of exchange [1] versus store of value [2], which are all different roles. For example, gift-cards might be a medium of exchange in some sketchy places, but the unit of account is the dollar-amount on them. Which roles would cryptocurrency be actually taking?

> All i see are more and more govs and entities like blackrock being co-opted.

The way I see it, the optimistic utopian dreams of cryptocurrency are going nowhere. Meanwhile, big banks banks--or by upstarts trying to replace them in the same basic game--are trying to use "crypto" to grow while dodging normal laws and regulations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_account

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value