Still, (I think) Bitcoin was not meant as a way to evade tax or capital controls but to be your own bank by having direct control of your money.
BTC might initially have had those former uses, but is steadily moving away from its experimental past, and that is a very big positive.
Regulations treating BTC as a mainstream asset, including AML and institutional KYC, are already essential at the fiat interface, but the treatment of transfers in crypto alone are a different question.
On one level, regulations about crypto transfers are defacto recognising it offically as money. That may not be a route that monetary authorities want to go down at present.
In most juristictions, all valuable assets are required to be registered in some way,and that usually is a positve in terms of ownership law and security. If BTC is outside that system it will always have a deficiency in terms of adoption and mainstream recognition.
I would envisage BTC and some other cryptos eventually coming within all of that, with most others remaining in the grey zone ,with the concomitant freedoms and also drawbacks of that status.
Surely the primary facet of cryptos (and the one for which BTC was born) is to provide a parallel monetary store and exchange system, as a refuge from the eventual insolvency of the current fiat regime ?
Over the long term, the free market should decide whether that is a worthy, recognised or necessary function.