This is a really good case against crypto.
In the crypto case of this thread, the OP made a mistake and there's no process to fix it. 100K's lost. There's no avenue for recovery.
In the banking case of your link, the man made a mistake and was able to correct it, despite the bank working against him. 100K's lost and recovered.
In the case of the bank, it sure wasn't perfect and definitely should be better. But ultimately, the bank not only paid to recover the money, but the banking system (according to the article) is at least promising a fix for the underlying issue that a simple mistake in writing digits can lead to missending funds.
Also: crypto is touts its trustless nature as a positive. But note that trust is the lever Mr. Teich used to get Barclays to pay the cost of recovering the funds. Barclays only paid after their reputation was threatened, and of course, trust is based on reputation.