I understand (and actually happened to do) most of that stuff
That's great. The truth of the matter is that pretty much everyone worth their salt goes through all that I listed up there (and more). It's just common sense, after all. I wrote this post because the people for whom it isn't common sense have no other way to find out about it.
Compare the case of A, who aspires to become an Opera singer, and B, who aspires to become a rap singer. A spends five hours a day practicing, doing boring stuff such as vocalize, paying canto professors and in general going to a lot of trouble. B spends his time posting on BlackPantherForum.gov
Five years later, A is singing her first paid engagement (not quite an established Opera house, but certainly a start) and B is a juvenile delinquent. As far as A is concerned, obviously B never had a shot to begin with: didn't work his voice, didn't practice, didn't X Y Z. As far as B is concerned however, A just got a lucky break, possibly cause she's white. Or a girl. Or whatever else. B doesn't even know about the X Y Z.
Are you trying to say that most of us will soon become criminals?
In as much as you agree with the simple notion that starting a BTC business such as a BTC bank and then "defaulting" is criminal behavior, that's exactly what I am saying.
To illuminate this point: default is a specified statutory protection (that's why it's called "chapter 11 or 7 protection"). There's no statute in BTC, and as such "default" can never exist in that sense, as something that "happens". The distinction between theft and "default" does not exist in BTC, mostly because it can't exist (and this is yet another of those many fields in which BTC forces economy back on a sound footing).
I specifically am not saying or hinting that some nebulous new legislation would impact Bitcoin in any relevant manner in the future or somesuch. The entire reasoning is the simple default = crime equation explained above.
And where does the "k" come from?
The k factor comes from the specified nature of the business (ie, BTC business). In order to be able to offer BTC business you must at a minimum be able to correctly and safely handle payments. This is a cost, in an actuarial view of the world (in the sense it is a risk you undertake, and all risks can be viewed as costs).
A traditional business doesn't one day wake up to discover that Linode was hacked and so now they have to make good on about twenty thousand dollars they thought they had safely but, as it turns out, are gone (like slush was, back in the Linode "hack" or whatever it was).
Thus, by simply starting a BTC business you are already undertaking some risks, and so are sinking in some costs. This k starts out high (but not really
that high, it's likely under 100k in all cases - which makes it negligible in comparison to regulatory and compliance costs in most real-world situations) and tends to zero over time. In the case of most established businesses it may be considered no longer a significant stand-alone factor (mostly on the theory that a business past the break-even point is breaking even on all its costs, not just some selection).
You will notice that article is a strict comparison of like things. If you're comparing apples and oranges, you can in principle disregard any risks they both share as fruit, even if you might consider risks one incurs for being limited to the color orange whereas the other not so much being red to yellow.
PS. We don't for a moment even contemplate the notion that people's skin tone has any impact on their general ability or odds to succeed in whatever they may endeavor. We do however believe even mediocre Opera is far superior to any rap music ever created.