Yeah, for now we don't have a solution which is secure enough for mass use.
The masses may not be adept enough to use it, but that has zero relevance to how secure the bitcoin network is. It might be an idea to read up about the various ways in which the network is secured.
The banks and other private companies have consistently misunderstood the security model, trying as you say to promote their own "blockchain" technology, but they typically insist on remaining in sole control of the ledger. All such centralised blockchain systems are barely any more secure than the present legacy banking system. Bitcoin literally is the bleeding edge of development, the banks are not properly incentivised to catch up, as it clashes too severely with their business model.
The centralized blockchain is what the banks are really missing. The decentralization of the Bitcoin network is what makes it secure and almost invulnerable to attacks (though a 51% attack could prove me wrong). Miners from all over the world keep it secure from different attacks while in a centralized blockchain, a single attack could probably crumble the tech into ruins.
Banks wanted to gain full control (as always) but didn't even care to bother about the effects of it in their own business model. What traditional banks care about is their profit; nothing more, nothing less. If the public sees what bitcoin has to offer, then they will find a better alternative for banks, and of course, that is bitcoin.
