Take a look at this pick. The siege of Masada. Some Jewish zealots decided to fortify on a near-unreachable rocky outcrop and speak mean things about the Roman Empire. When and why is not the point. The point is, the mighty Roman Empire could have just ignored them since they posed absolutely 0 threat to the Empire or even to local tax revenues. But they did not. See that stone ramp leading up onto the plateau? The Romans built that exclusively to erase the last bastion of a Jewish revolt. Took 'em a while I imagine, this is a modern photograph and you can still see the ramp clearly. So how does this all relate to crypto? Well, let me tell you, that's exactly the situation with crypto. The global financial system is the Empire now (the Citadel, to use Moldbugian terms) or to be more specific, the Breton-Woods'esque grotesque that passes for a financial system is the Empire. Crypto is the revolt. The Empire could just go on collecting revenues and literally not care what crypto has to say about it. But every Empire is based... upon credibility. The Empire stands only when it proves to everyone that it does not only stand, but is also the only thing standing. Take that in and let's move on to what I actually want to say. The attack on crypto, or as some cucks would call it, the 'regulation' of crypto, the 'domestication' of crypto or whatever can be interpreted in a limited number of ways:

a) The simplest scenario is: states, or rather, some US three letter agencies decide to severely hamper crypto. They could try in multiple ways, how is not the point. The point is: the winner is the new Empire. Who survives, wins. Literally. The survival of crypto would inevitably legitimise it. To win a war against the Empire, even without harming the Empire, is to dethrone the Empire mentally. Think Greeks beating Persian invasions. Was Persia hurt? No. What did Greece gain? Nothing. But then, a while later, who was Alexander the Great? Was he a Persian conquering Greece or the opposite? Exactly. Winning against the Empire will enable the dawn of a new era. Chaotic, but new. The loss of crypto and it's 'taming' into just another Wall Street asset is a scenario that I do not care to analyse, it is the far more boring one.

b) The Empire not attacking crypto would be akin to the Romans ignoring Masada. A loss of face and perhaps the beginning of the end for the powers that be (much like scenario a). An Empire can afford to ignore a rebel only when it knows that a siege would not end well for it, i.e., the loss of assets fighting crypto makes the fight not worth it and the loss of face is something you can fight by pumping another hedge fund full of FEDollars. This however would mean that crypto is feared. Ridiculed, but feared. People often ridicule what they are afraid of, think of all the jokes about death, are they not just coping mechanisms? This is a very good scenario, because it suggests a very slow death of the Breton Woods monopoly and a peaceful ascendance of crypto.

c) if the attack is non-consequential or even does not actually happen, we should consider whether the existence of crypto is perhaps tacitly acknowledged by state agents to be useful, much like the onion router network has proven useful and that fighting it was never the point. The tool that crypto is can be used by criminals, but it can also be used by states, to much greater effect, and states are willing to make some concessions, the odd nod to liberty to have another tool in their arsenal. Remember, agencies and corporations share this one thing with live organisms: they seek to enhance their power, always. This vitality means they prefer to be better and better at catching criminals than prevent crime, so they would opt for a new tool rather then the elimination of a sphere of criminal activity.

So the question is, who is the real Alpha male on the block. Crypto or SWIFT&friends? There are other scenarios but I have chosen to focus just on the three I consider most probable, because why not.