I'm pointing out that anonymous money flows are already effectively illegal, given the KYC/AML laws. At some point, any Funny Money system you create has to interact with the fiat system so that people can actually do stuff like pay their utility bills, and if Funny Money is triggering compliance alarm bells, and at that point, well, read the article.
Something else to point out is that just because a system is unsustainable doesn't mean it will collapse immediately.
Oh alright. I don't see how this invalidates the use cases? The businesses that have payment processor problems aren't illegal, and can easily prove their revenue.
And I do agree that unsustainable systems don't collapse immediately. I've been waiting for Tether to collapse for years. But I don't think cryptocurrencies as a whole are unsustainable (the larger proper exchanges that don't use Tether as their "fiat option" should survive).
Anonymous money flows aren't illegal. There are those that would like to make them illegal, but all they've managed to institute so far is KYC/AML laws relating to third party payment processors. These laws don't apply to cash or its electronic corollary, cryptocurrency.
Until a law is created that makes unmonitored use of physical and electronic cash illegal, anonymous money flows aren't across-the-board illegal.
One obstacle elitists have in instituting such laws is that enforcement would be costly, involving heavy-handed treatment of large numbers of end-users. Trusted third parties like banks are comparatively easy targets, being much less politically costly to repress.
Something else to point out is that just because a system is unsustainable doesn't mean it will collapse immediately.