Earlier quoted context omitted.
My belief is that blockchain-based solutions are typically inferior to centralized ones except when the goal is to evade regulation. (Crypto is good for dealing in contraband, dodging currency controls, and collecting ransomware; but it's always less efficient than centralized solutions with a trusted authority. And the only time you can't find a trusted authority is when you're trying to dodge regulation.) In this i…
"Evading regulations" is a phrase that holds a different weight when you don't live in a free society. "Evading regulations" could be using a gay dating app in Iran. Or organizing to fight against a repressive government in Russia. Even in so-called civilized Western nations, there are increasing tendencies toward autocratic rhetoric and encroachments into personal liberties. See: abortion access in the United States…
2. The second part argues about centralized entities changing ownership. I don't think the example of Twitter usernames is a good use-case for blockchain: there's nothing here that isn't already solved by public key crypto alone (which is how blockchain solves the problem anyway).
Maybe Twitter here is just an example and you want to talk about corporate control over payment services? I don't think this is a compelling argument. There's no shortage of payment services and even if one of them is bad you can always find another. Yeah: Stripe or your bank go out of business tomorrow, but switching to Apple Pay or a different bank is not a huge problem.