The consensus to contain crypto worldwide will never exist, as nation-states can't even agree on the most basic of rulesets ...

Is that a safe assumption? If crypto does come to threaten the existence, control, relevance of the nation state, it could be the reason nation states are (finally) willing to give up sovereignty to the U.N. A United Nations with real enforcement powers could be the centralized agent that beats decentralization, which works based on the premise that rules in one nation can be beaten by running a node in another nation. Is it safe to assume that global society, or the powers-that-be, will not evolve to a one world government? The possibility of a global centralized agent is something you never consider in your arguments. I think at some point it has to be considered, and I would definitely be interested in your thoughts on that.