But that's the point, crypto is a coordination mechanism that in most cases serves as an alternative when you don't have effective and trustworthy centralized institutions. It's pretty clear that (in this case) European financial regulators did a good job coordinating an effective and efficient electronic money transmission system.
But the whole world is not Sweden. Even in America, which is relatively first world with relatively decent institutions, our regulators failed to coordinate a decent electronic money transmission system. Now imagine being in Turkey or LatAm or Sri Lanka. (Or even just being in Europe and needing to interface with anywhere outside the European utopia.) Agree that decentralized protocols come with many inherent inefficiencies and frictions. But when institutions fail, the only alternative are decentralized protocols.
In many ways I see the pro- vs. anti- crypto division coming down to how much people believe in institutions. Most crypto criticisms come down to an appeal to just focus on building better institutions rather than waste mountains of talent on overly complex decentralized protocols. "Instead of all this on-chain stablecoin nonsense, why don't we focus our efforts on electing better financial regulators, who can bring European like money transfers to North America and eventually the globe?"
Whereas I think pro-crypto people (myself included), tend to think of any attempts to change public policy as /dev/null. Most of the world is saddled with horribly dysfunctional institutions, and it's not easy to fix. I have much more confidence in our ability to engineer solutions than mustering the necessary political and social coordination necessary to fix governments, policy, regulators and institutions.