I generally agree but there definitely are exceptions. For example they can provide viable financial models for tech organizations like Brave and Protocol Labs (I'm not endorsing them) to actually care about privacy, which is an enormous social issue right now.
1. A micropayment system. Nothing here requires a blockchain. Maybe doing it in a privacy-preserving way is easier with a decentralized solution, but I’m not convinced this is necessarily true.
2. Bypassing problematic regulation. The US and US-led financial system make legally moving small amounts of money around on behalf of clients prohibitively expensive and require an unfortunate degree of discrimination. By magic, blockchains bypass this.
The latter is, in my mind, a huge problem in both directions. A non-blockchain company should be able to offer micropayments without getting tangled in a KYC-AML morass. To the contrary, I would argue that financial services on a common carrier basis would be superior to the current system.
On the flip side, I don’t understand why regulators tolerate cryptocurrency exchanges or why they should tolerate them. From outside, Bitcoin (and, even more so, Monero) are systems by which unknown people can instruct exchanges to move fiat currency without knowing on whose behalf they are moving it. This flies entirely in the face of AML-KYC. The exchanges do not know the customer. Money is laundered.
Sure, your wallet isn't necessarily traceable to your identity, but the whole transaction history of your wallet is there, and if you ever convert those bitcoins to real cash, you're going to need to divulge that identity to someone.