I liked the idea in the start. But in 2017 i didn't think it was a viable alternative anymore.
Many people say banks are bad, but they protect many people against fraud, Bitcoin doesn't ( eg. Chargebacks or losing access)
Banks are replaced by unknown platforms in unknown countries in many places. Which results in an insane amount of hacks ( internally or externally). Hence: https://rekt.news
If banks use it as settlement later, they won't adopt any of the existing solutions. Leaving all the current implementations of Blockchain in the dust ( the proponents of crypto don't understand this argument though).
Many non-tech minded people won't keep an offline wallet, since most people are lazy ( that's not a bad thing, it's just a fact). But in this case it can be very dangerous.
The people buying Bitcoin have no idea how it works and can easily get scammed by other people ( eg. One coin wasn't even a Blockchain and I knew people that fell for it and they couldn't be convinced that they were being scammed. They know by now though, the hard way).
Even the original premise of Bitcoin is gone ( decentralization) and is being replaced by workarounds ( eg. Lightning and offchain wallets).
It's the same story over and over again. Now NFT's and later probably something else. The only constant is pump and dump schemes from whales and that it's the preferred destination of criminals.
In the end, it doesn't solve much and perhaps the solution for the rare case "it solved something", is just increasing internet availability to enable banking for poor people in remote areas. So they don't need to drive 3 hours ( eg. The actual problem/ solution of El Salvador and Bitcoin as a solution was a fake dogma)