Crypto seems too absolutist for this use case. (Although I should mention that they seem to discuss rolling back the blockchain whenever a big heist takes place. But if you can rollback then chain, then doesn't that circumvent the core tenant of no trust needed as now you have to trust that the group doesn't decide to rollback the chain?)
Who decides what is a "whoopsy" a legitimate user made, and what is a pretend-"whoopsy" conjured by a malicious actor? Giving people & automated systems ability to flag something as "whoopsy" and revert it or lock down entire account enables malicious abuse and honest mistakes; either can end up very costly or even effectively irreversible in some cases.
Trivial example: every day we see a new post on HN about somebody's Apple/Google/YT/payment processor/etc operation/content/account being marked as "whoopsy" by the support or anti-fraud team, and they losing access to data/finances.
The best way to think of cryptocurrencies being "too absolutist" (irreversible) is as of a complementary counterpart to the (fiat) money which is too open to interpretation and always subject to unexpected third party decisions.