I happened to catch an a16z podcast on (the original) disruption theory the other day. They clarified the theory in a way that, perhaps, Blockchain advocates would appreciate right now.
The original theory was specifically exploring why market leaders can be overtaken by a new player. "Disruption" is not just a revolutionary tech -- cars and the iphone don't qualify as disruptive, in the original theory's definition. Disruption occurs when you find a niche market that's too low-revenue for the current leader to engage. The niche is often a small market that doesn't need the leader's full solution ("low-end") or which simply wasn't targeted at all ("new-market"). A disruptor will engage those niches because they can survive on the low revenue, win their markets, and use that to sustain growth into larger markets, until they become a new leader.
(The Wikipedia summary is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#Theory)
If you're looking for the Blockchain to disrupt, by the original idea of disruption, you shouldn't be looking at serving the same market that a bank does. You should be looking for a low-end or unserved niche -- which is especially smart for FinTech, which is inherently risk-sensitive, and so needs a lower-risk market to mature.