> I have used Bitcoin to donate money to organizations the state would prefer me not to, such as Ukrainian defense, or Wikileaks (famously blockaded by banks without/before criminal charges).
So?
You can do all of this without crypto, there is nothing new or novel that crypto has done here.
> There are lots of truly amazing cross-border use cases; permissionless internet money has huge utility.
Same again, and in fact we have PayPal, Xoom, Wise, etc.,
Instead, you are asking normal people to rely on crypto exchanges to convert their crypto into fiat (with extra costly fees) through a complicated process in order to receive money.
This is neither innovative or novel, it just adds more needless complexity and is a regression from what already exists in the current financial system.
> NFTs allow fans to financially support visual artists via collectibles (potentially with resale value) in exchange for donations. (I say donations because buying an NFT does not purchase the art the NFT represents.)
This highly wash traded 'market' is down big, so by using NFTs you're not really supporting artists at all, you are driving down the 'value' of the collectible down to 0.
> Usually when I offer these use cases, people move the goalposts, saying how these things are somehow already possible (they aren’t, at least in the same way, or same speed, or same cost, or same level of privacy-preservation).
The reason why we have the current system is to reduce the amount of bad actors trying to defraud people, crypto just blows this right open to create a wild west of fraud.
How would the privacy preservation work with businesses, It wouldn't as no business would want to touch crypto and it is not worth the accounting hell for them.
> It’s nice to be able to transact without identity attached to every transaction.
This is called cash.