From my point of view you over estimate the power of cryptocurrency regarding the psychological effects. Right now their powers are too marginal to attract the attention of the financial leading powers. That's why an optimistic outlook can be published within the participants of blockchain technology. They still act relatively undisturbed.

I would be a little less enthusiastic about the liberating aspects of cryptocurrencies. Not only what is achieved within the virtual realm alone should be considered but still what a member of a blockchain achieves in his physical realm for the common good. Some participants forget that community is no just a thing you practice through the Internet but also in real life time. If there is no connection between the two I find that problematic. When my time and energy is bound by online-activities I lack this capacity in offline activities.

In a German publication "Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics by the Universities of Aachen ∙ Gießen ∙ Göttingen Kassel ∙ Marburg ∙ Siegen" from Andreas Hanl und Jochen Michaelis it sais:

Both extreme scenarios - crypto currencies remain a marginal phenomenon or completely supplant traditional currencies - appear unrealistic. A permanent coexistence of crypto currencies and traditional currencies is to be expected. The macroeconomic implications of such coexistence are to date largely unexplored territory.

Since research into the interaction of crypto currency and monetary policy is still in its infancy, various problems can simply be described as open.
This applies, for example, to the changed role of commercial banks in the transmission process of monetary policy.
If the increased financial intermediation by means of crypto currency is accompanied by increased migration to the shadow banks, it is not least the regulatory authorities that will take action here. This also applies to any impact on financial market stability.
The role of monetary policy as lender of last resort needs to be reconsidered. It should also be mentioned that crypto currencies themselves can be the cause of shocks. The collapse of a platform like Mt Gox, accompanied by the loss of 650,000 bitcoins, would be an event with real economic effects that would force central banks to respond.

source (translated the part above from): https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers/paper_2017/15-2017_hanl.pdf

My question to you would be:
Would you like cryptocurrencies to be the dominant financial actor/option between people or do you see it as complementary to find it's role in the market activities?

I think that - looking at things from an organic point of view - that the best working systems are those of variety, meaning many different actors move within a system. The more variety a living systems offer the better it works. As financials are just an expression of the living world of humans I am not sure about cryptocurrencies named as "new liberation" and such.

I like the mix of cash money and different currencies and I am cautious about any form of dominance or lack of variety. Though dominance in one way or another is a matter of fact which cannot be solved entirely. It's always a movement of rise and go down.

I would like steemit to be a more stable currency and to use it as one form of reliance for my old ages or for my son to whom I would bequeath my account. ... Still, the best investment I can make is into people and not currencies alone. A mixture is in my eyes a good form to take care of my future. When money fails caring friendships should be in reachable sight.