These types of services are welcome. We will see how badly they will be regulated by coercion from the state, if not, they will be held in check by the market (with some cockups). If the market demands it, and it can be supplied to the right price, it is good.
The actual point of regulation is to try to minimize the expense of dealing with them. Unregulated businesses in a situation where they are trusted (ie, where they can screw their customers over) are very expensive. In fact, experience shows, more expensive than tightly regulated ones.
We would like to not labor under the cost of regulation. But avoiding regulation doesn't work to keep costs down either, unless we can come up with trust-free (ie, where they CAN'T screw their customers over) models for these services.
This is about adoption; if Bitcoin remains more expensive (ie, if the cost savings of a trust-free business model remains something we can't actually deliver to end users and businesses) then there isn't an economic motive for mainstream businesses to adopt Bitcoin.
I don't agree. The point of regulation is to create relative bans and relative privileges, which escalates to absolute bans and privileges, which is equal to a monopoly by coercion. It always reduces the options for the market, which makes everything more expensive.
Bitcoin is not perfect for all purposes, so we need extensions. Trustless solutions using crypto is preferrable, but in trading goods and services for money, some level of trust both ways between customer and supplier is always necessary and not always unwanted, and service companies that need a low level of trust to help the process is ok.
