I see the absurdity of claiming that something (in this case absolute financial privacy) is for the benefit of everyone and worth the costs without taking into account whether the tradeoff does actually benefit everyone, or if the price is something that most people, let alone everyone, would be willing to pay.

Because claiming cybercrime is a price that is worth it for everyone to have this privacy comes across a lot like Trump saying "Don't expect the US to fight your wars for you any more, you're welcome, ingrates" while waging an unnecessary war nobody else wanted.

> A tool should not be regulated based on what it can do.

They should be regulated on their primary purpose in practice and the damage that they cause. And Monero is unwilling or unable to police itself, even as it does damage that dwarfs pretty much any other computing technology.

And not just nebulous "missed sale" damage, but very real damage that often results in dead people and ruined lives.

> Regulating tools rather than the action or intention of a person or group is inherently backwards and wrong imo.

We absolutely regulate tools that can inflict a disproportionate amount of damage. For example, I can't just buy high explosives even if I just want to do a cool video of me launching a manhole cover into the air. Or nuclear materials. Or surface-to-air missiles. Or....