Yes, however I see too many people using time and resources to attempt to make state adoption a reality over popular adoption, which is worrying. I did not reset my economic calculus based on bitcoin only to have to a "pay with bitcoin" box at the tax collector's office. It was to free myself from fiat's essential flaws. 

 Reading your piece, I understand your analysis. Bitcoin forces honesty, and it will increasingly become embraced among private and public institutions because of necessity more than virtue.

I somewhat agree with that.

My own intuition, however, is that many people are using significant time and resources to try to "orange pill" the state or its various representatives in what will end up mostly a symbolic measure.

The network improves as more nodes come on line, more transactions are processed, and more creativity is applied to the structuring of everything above (lightning, ark, etc.). 

Fundamentally, though, the "honesty" of money argument (as Zechariah's flying Scroll) is more readily applied in the developing world and will take time to root elsewhere. In this sense, I accept the Schumpeter cycle that it will take some sort of demise or deep depression to restart the engine and move large institutions onto honest money (though the smart ones will have already pivoted).

As long as our focus, as users of bitcoin, developers, educators, and activists, remains on individuals empowering themselves independent of the "bitcoin strategy" of the state, we are better off. 

 I agree.  Some people cannot imagine a world where state dominance on daily life is diminished even slightly.  

Thanks for the synopsis. I will look into the Schumpeter cycle.  Not familiar with this term. 

 The book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter