I re-read the post a few times to fully grasp everything to the best of my ability.

Also, thanks for the correction and you’re right, I misframed the Epstein point. I treated it as ‘criminals using crypto’ rather than Epstein’s role in the early corporate capture of BTC via Blockstream, which is what you were actually highlighting. That’s on me.

I also found this picture floating around the web. I have no idea of it is true or not:

As I understand your argument now, the core issue isn’t BTC, XMR, or any specific chain, but the fact that all cryptocurrency is ultimately just data transmitted over privately owned physical infrastructure, coupled with comprehensive surveillance and AI-mediated permissioning. That combination allows for granular censorship of transactions at the individual level, which functionally collapses all crypto into a CBDC-like control system regardless of protocol design.

I agree with the foundation of that critique — ownership of the pipes is ownership of the flow, and surveillance turns that ownership into actionable power. Where I’m still trying to think clearly is whether that control is absolute or asymptotic.

In other words, is granular economic control already total in practice, or is it directionally inevitable but still constrained by cost, scale, coordination, and political friction?

Not to argue that crypto “sets us free,” but to understand whether partial friction, lag, or enforcement limits still create meaningful (even if temporary) optionality for individuals during the transition.

I’m not asking this to defend any coin — I’m trying to understand whether the distinction between can be controlled and can be perfectly controlled matters, or whether you see that distinction as irrelevant given the trajectory you’re describing.

I highly appreciate the pushback, it helped me re-read the post with clearer eyes.