While the title of this post is obviously not true when it comes to things like TVL (Total Value Locked) or the rate of adoption, in some very significant ways, widely understood crypto has overtaken 'traditional' (or rather established) banking. I would like to point out the ways in which the claim made in the title is true and then ask if this is indeed significant in any way and if so, how.

Fees
First off is the price of international money transfer. While most large banks in developed countries will charge no fee for transfers between banks in the same country and innovations such as SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area), which stipulate that the cost of transfers among parties within participating countries must not exceed charges levied for domestic transactions have made transferring money free of extra cost inmost cases, sometimes one can be faced with a steep bill for performing a non-standard payment. Say you would like to send money from Denmark to your cousin in Djibouti, you would likely be asked to pay about 20 Euro, depending on your bank and your arrangement with it. Now, a fee of 20 Euro in BTC (as of today) would enable you to send 1000 euro's worth in BTC at 105sats/byte, which would almost certainly get your transaction included in the currently mined block and confirmed within 10 minutes of sending. Depending on network congestion, you could send a thousand euro, pay 1/10 of what the bank would charge you and be reasonably confident that your cousin will get the funds within half an hour. And this is just the BTC network we are discussing, you would expect to pay way less on Binance Chain, Polygon or Fantom.

Speed
The second factor is speed. Conventional banking will settle your transaction within minutes if you pay extra or bank at the same institution as your recipient, but most of the time you have to wait for an account clearing event agreed upon between banks, the frequency of which depends on where you bank, but is usually between once and three times a day, which is pathetic compared to crypto. I am sure many of you have left low-priority transactions with low fees to get confirmed overnight, but usually in the crypto sphere you would expect your cousin in Djibouti to receive funds within a comfortably short period of time, preferably within the hour. There is no SEPA in crypto, which is, on the user side of things at least, global, meaning that the speed and price of transactions do not depend on proximity. The recipient could be in the next room, connected to your wifi or nine timezones away, but the price and hence speed of the transfer would remain something that you could choose for yourself.

Ease of setting up
While the fine tuning of numerous crypto skills, not least the fees/speed balance alluded to above, takes time and effort, this pales in comparison to traditional banking, which requires of those who would partake in it not only their acquiescence to numerous liberties which the bank will take with their data, but invariably also the identity of the person who would transfer money with a certain set of numbers. This is in stark contrast to crypto, which still, despite the shameful compliancy of many exchanges to the illegitimate wishes of states, may be operated without that foolish self-doxxing which is described as KYC procedure. The only requirement for owning crypto is having someone send you some. Perhaps you could even be handed a piece of paper with the seed of a wallet, which you could then restore and move the funds elsewhere, meaning that you would not even need a wallet of your own to own. This is analogous to being given a cheque and being able to cash it without a bank account. In this, crypto resembles cash money much more than it does modern banking, and yet it offers most or all of the utility of the latter.

There are surely more dimensions in which crypto has overtaken the legacy banking system in terms of utility and cost, however it becomes clear that a metric is merely a metric and does not imply that some paradigm shift is inevitable. Many if not most people are perfectly content spending too much money to get things done, offering them a better alternative does not have to lead to its mass adoption. The only metric which matters when it comes to the adoption of crypto is the adoption of crypto. While the first sentence of the title of this post is disputable, the second is a question which remains rhetorical.