The issue isn't really about the country as much as it is about the fact that developers of the leading cryptos ignore global sentiment when making design decisions. Not every one of the possible 7 billion users of crypto is going to be an anarchist, or hate the banks, or be anti government, or be hoping for or waiting for the fall of their national fiat, and if these attitudes are required in order for people to use crypto then crypto will only be fashionable in limited circles.

This limitation on the growth potential of crypto comes with the territory, is predictable, and it makes it easy to ban crypto. I mean think about it? Does the average person on the earth care about what we see the average crypto enthusiast caring about? The data if we look at global sentiment data would reveal the average person has a totally different mind set.

That being said crypto is still useful but if the idea is to have the highest price, mainstream adoption, maximum growth potential, then there will have to be cryptos which appeal toward the typical person. Bitcoin? Most people don't want to be their own bank. A lot of people in a lot of countries like their banks and their governments. A lot of people actually are nationalists and support the idea of paying taxes and serving their country.

Bitcoin simply does not appeal to this group of people. This group of people on the other hand gains power in a possible trade war scenario where economic nationalism may overtake global markets. In other words Bitcoin is a fundamentally globalist concept, post nationalist concept, trying to evolve within an increasingly nationalist world.

I see this problem and I do not see it being solved politically. There is demand for cryptos but the demand comes from people who in my opinion would use it for practical purposes such as micropayments, or to invest in ICOs, or for lifestyle gains (like being a Digital Nomad). But the problems arise when you ask the question how do you get the sort of people who would agree with a crypto ban, or agree with Trump for instance, to somehow find Bitcoin interesting or crypto interesting?

The only way I see to do it is to build tools and platforms which offer greater utility than anything else out there. It has to offer this utility to everyone and be adaptable so that the platform can evolve with the ever changing public sentiment. This is actually possible and we can see this with the Tezos model. The Bitcoin model doesn't allow for this because Bitcoin pretty much ignores global sentiment when deciding on it's design priorities in favor of a more technocratic approach with hard forks and bickering developer cliques. DPOS offers an approach but the DPOS approach basically be gamed like any other political election which means instead of just "Russian interference" in the political election, under DPOS you will have interference from all interested parties, backed by possibly any and all governments, private companies, etc. DPOS is flawed in it's design unless the witnesses remain completely anonymous and there is a true meritocracy for how the tokens are earned.

Steemit offers at least part of a solution by allowing people to earn their weight. The problem is we see the same political gamesmanship that we see in every other political system. As millions of people get involved with Steem the politics will become more brutal. If Steem remains transparent then those who are used to exploiting transparency for political purposes will rise to the top.