> its elimination (in most US states, AFAIK) doesn't seem to be hurting ecommerce muc
This seems to be the crux of your argument, and doesn't necessarily follow. Just because it was instrumental for the rise doesn't mean it will cause a fall if its removed at a significantly later point in time.
A support can be essential for building a bridge, even though the bridge stands without it when completed. I think tax evasion was precisely that bridge support for online commerce.
> Apparently some people think that cryptocurrencies and ecommerce were both founded or significantly based on criminality, but I think there are some great advantages and opportunities with both that have nothing to do with crime.
These two positions aren't contrary, and I'm curious why you're presenting them as if they were -- criminality is incentive to switch services, which are then sticky because they do provide features. However, pretending that those features is what caused the initial switch is revisionist.
> ecommerce I think it's ludicrous to claim that its success is owed to crime to any meaningful extent
I think claiming its success (and certainly that of current players) doesn't have anything to do with early criminality is absurd.
That being said, no one is talking about its present generator of value, we're talking about what created the incentives that led to this outcome two decades ago.