Why keep Bitcoin around?
A typical crypto-native response is crypto’s indefatigability: “See, states are beginning to realize that cryptocurrencies are potent competition, because we are!”

Bitlievers proclaim that cryptocurrencies are superior money . Therefore, ‘the market’ will inevitably choose crypto.

. Therefore, ‘the market’ will inevitably choose crypto. Some argue that crypto will win the money war of attrition, at which point people may not have a choice but to use crypto. Many crypto folks (though, not all) may believe the Euro and USD will collapse, and related eschatological (end-times) reasons. And the sharpest and most valuable tool in the shed will be … say… Bitcoin.

But this begs the question: if faced with an existential choice between relinquishing monetary control or attacking Bitcoin, why wouldn’t incumbents simply outlaw or otherwise try to capture Bitcoin?

This is the biggest existential question for any limited-utility blockchain tool.

The question is NOT whether states have already done this. The question is NOT whether states/corporations can do this (e.g., whether, say, Bitcoin is inherently uncapturable). The question is much more simple:

Why wouldn’t a state or private competitor to Bitcoin simply try to capture the Bitcoin network? Either through legal/regulatory channels, or via an outright hostile takeover?

Thus far, nobody wants to answer this question publicly.

That’s a shame because there’s no shortage of diehard bitlievers who will stop at nothing to emphasize Bitcoin supremacy. If that’s the case, this should be an easy question for them to answer (and then defend from critiques).
[]
['Cryptocurrency News', 'Libra', 'Blockchain', 'Cryptocurrency', 'Bitcoin']