This brings up an exceedingly funny point: blockchains excel at making every transaction public (a property that nearly nobody actually wants) and simultaneously offering complete privacy to institutional actors.
In other words: privacy for me, but not for thee.
The whales got a bailout, while retail got market forces.
"Al amigo, todo; al enemigo, ni justicia."
Non-institutional actors are transacting over an immutable public ledger. Institutional actors are transacting via backchannels. In other words: the cryptocurrency transaction space is "schizophrenic": the traffic that supports high valuations is not settled on the chain itself, but via gentlemen's agreements. Non-institutional actors could do the same thing (and get the same privacy), but then it's just normal money laundering instead of "decentralized finance."
As in, they are keeping funds on centralized exchanges? Users can do the exact same thing if they want, not sure I get your point.
I guess I'm not sure how you get from that to privacy only being achievable by institutions?
The only points being made are that (1) virtually nobody actually wants their entire life's transactions recorded on an immutable public ledger, and (2) the people whose economic activity currently backs the speculate value of these coins play by a different rulebook entirely.
I guess this is where I don't know what you mean, specifically