Let me also put it this way:

If a privacy-by-default system like #Monero had been the initial baseline for digital cash, and someone subsequently introduced a completely transparent ledger like Bitcoin, it would have been instantly rejected as an absurdity -if not an outright piece of state surveillance software. Imagine presenting a new protocol to a public accustomed to native confidentiality and saying:

"We’ve built a alternative where every transaction you make, your full balance, and your complete counterparty history are permanently published on a public bulletin board for corporations, governments, and bad actors to monitor indefinitely."

The reaction would be unanimous shock:

"Why on earth would anyone voluntarily trade monetary freedom for a permanent, public financial panopticon?"

I think, the only reason transparent ledgers are defended today is status quo bias -mistaking chronological priority for architectural superiority. In any rational economic framework, native privacy is not an added feature; but rather it is the fundamental prerequisite for fungibility, personal safety, and censorship resistance. Had private digital cash set the initial standard, exposing your entire financial history to the world wouldn't be spun as "openness" or "auditability" -it would be correctly recognized as a critical design vulnerability and a dystopian nightmare.