The article also mentioned exchange delistings. This makes my skepticism stronger that their article is for only fud.
The exchanges have delisted privacy centered coins because they do not want to be shut down by local governments for "potentially" harboring criminals from monetary transactions. They also do not want to be held responsible for helping transact dirty crypto used by bad actors. It's all about the CYA aspect of remaining viable as an exchange in order to maintain income for stakeholders.
Ask yourself, why do so many non-USA exchanges not allow or even IP block NA retail traders? That AML/KYC is a B.
Yes, clearly the issue is about compliance. There is a paper written by a group of lawyers and it argues that anonymous and privacy enabled coins' features should be kept, can be listed and still be compliant.
https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/2/3/v7/237411/Perkins-Coie-LLP-White-Paper-AML-Regulation-of-Privacy-enablin.pdf
In any case, transaction privacy will be an important issue in the next years to come in the cryptspace. Michael Saylor, who has a large economic interest on bitcoin, might be next popular figure to declare more tranparency and blockchain analysis is good to protect his investment.
