You are advocating for crypto insurance. With regard to banks, if a thief withdraws cash from your ATM card, that money is gone. The bank has lost it. An outside insurer (or, if a large enough bank, self insurance) pays out the bank the amount they lost. Same is true if a thief is able to do a wire. ACH transfers may be a bit easier because typically the receiving bank won't allow withdrawals before the sending bank's chargeback period, but if they do, then their insurance will compensate for the loss.

I agree that crypto doesn't have a solid financial system backing it and that is necessary to be a replacement for the current one.

I'm not a huge crypto-believer, but I do think your criticism here is ultimately not really a criticism of crypto itself, but the financial system around it. Plenty of real-world currency suffers from the same lack of solid financial system. For example, I imagine you would be hard-pressed to find the same guarantees from banks dealing with venezuelan bolivars.

That being said, I think the best use case for crypto is still not one where every single person runs their own wallet. Rather, most people would use depository institutions who could run settlement on the blockchain. The main contribution and innovation is removal of red tape that is typically incurred when one wants to become a depository institution (mainly obtuse technical interfaces, slow clearing houses, etc).