Understandable, but wasn't this always going to be inevitable given people treating BTC as an investment for USD instead of as a crypto currency? Sooner or later, regardless of the Government/Country combination, you're going to get the attention of various agencies when an online currency starts to be used to store irl currency. It's why it's always been somewhat ironic to me that despite the original intent of cryptocurrency, people still listed their holdings in USD, as if BTC was their portfolio.
I understand to a degree the argument of what you do with your money should be your business, and if you want to store it in BTC and believe you can convert it to necessary currency later on, that's fine; I'm not being sardonic either, that's your choice with your money. But I don't think that BTC was really designed or intended for this purpose as it brings the exact sort of scrutiny that one would hope to avoid with a cryptocurrency, and with scrutiny, regulation. Maybe if the total value of exchanges on BTC without the injection/interaction of irl currencies grew large enough (i.e., there were enough transactions for legal goods/services), the same scrutiny "might" be applied, but I'm not really convinced that governments would care much one way or another.
Bitcoin's own reputation has also helped bring this scrutiny down - even if the level of anonymity is questionable, most government officials and agencies hear "anonymous" and "exchanges" and immediately want to have controls set in place. Even if they figure out that there is a very traceable paper trail, there's still an interest in ensuring that it's not being used to launder. Their curiosity will not be satisfied with people's assurances that "it's an online currency, that's all."
Basically, the gold rush with BTC sort of led it exactly to the state it's in, and brought the eye of government to it. As long as people treat it like gold or silver or any other commodity, the government is going to want a piece of it, or at least keep a solid eye on it.