All this advanced fiscal theory has left me more puzzled than hitherto.
So crypto-currencies are, (at least until I can get folding bitcoin money from my Bank)
a dream unrealised. I buy my bits from E-Bay and I seldom have a problem, as
PayPal works for me.
This is exactly my initial point - PayPal works, and it makes sense and by 2018 almost all people understand it (even though you can't fold PayPal
Crypto, however, allows you to make payments without paying merchant/service/whatever you call them fees on that transaction. It's also relatively free of government interference. This can carry a huge benefit as it allows people to purchase things that the government might not want them to purchase - and this is what Bramblethorn was referring to earlier, when they said it was linked to unsavoury people. If you want kiddie porn, the dark net and crypto is how you're going to buy it. You can buy hitmen, weapons and drugs the same way.
If you're uncomfortable with the continual reduction of civil rights, the ever reducing diversity in media and the lack of redress against financial institutions for their repeated and often major breaches and crimes, then crypto offers something of a safe haven - for the time being. You can hoard your money and buy things the government may not want you to buy.
Hell, I use it to buy marijuana. I have little interest in maintaining relations with some scabby neighbourhood dealer who'll offer something of low-to-middling quality on an ad-hoc basis, and every so often will panic because he's taken a bit too much meth and freak the fuck out as to why someone who looks like an accountant has appeared at their door.
Desire to buy a product + need for anonymity = use of crypto. DMMW is suggesting desire to buy a product + a producer's refusal to pay merchant fees = crypto, but this model relies on producers of premium products and/or the majority of producers demanding crypto.