> Laws are not always just, and not everybody who is prosecuted by some government is a criminal. Governments can seize bank accounts.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a magical technological fix for that problem. Wanting something to be useful for dissidents doesn't make it so and it's irresponsible to tell them otherwise just because adoption would be personally profitable for you.
> You can be labeled a nazi for nothing these days
Do you have citations on “nothing”? The examples I've seen are all of people who were doing things most people find objectionable and they didn't get a blanket ban on banking or being online but rather a specific company chose not to associate with them. Even actual Nazis like Stormfront don't seem to stay offline for that long.
> Should dissidents in authoritarian regimes just give up, and not use Encryption or Tor? It certainly seems dangerous, but what is the alternative? Also I suppose you could try using Monero without anybody knowing that you used it.
Think about what trying Monero would mean: you'd have to be able to use a search engine to find a client, download it without triggering monitoring, hope that it's not actually a trojan left by the secret police, hope that it doesn't make identifying network traffic (always-on blockchain networks are easy to profile that way), figure out how to convert local currency into Monero and vice versa, etc. — and either do so perfectly forever or very carefully purge your history without leaving a trace.
It seems a lot less risky to avoid things with massive electronic footprints and focus on using cash and offline communications as much as possible, but really the key part is not overpromising. When sales people go around saying things which are not true about cryptocurrency, they're giving advice which is actively unsafe to follow — it'd be much better not to say anything at all rather than give a false sense of security.