While I don't think you're wrong about this boosting visibility and adoption of cryptos, I don't see this as a good thing. Not that I don't want cryptos more broadly adopted. The reason this isn't good is because this is a vector for capture of cryptos for regulatory, tax, and fee extraction of our valuables (crypto, or any other money) by nefarious and corrupt actors, such as extant banksters and their captive governments.
"a trusted, name custodian — [such as] a Japanese bank or HSBC or ICE or Goldman Sachs — [is what would ultimately] allow institutional investors to feel comfortable.”
From the article linked. IMHO, the whole reason for cryptos is that these named institutions aren't trustworthy, and involving them in our transactions utterly defeats the purpose of crypto altogether, while losing the advantages of cash. Subjecting our crypto transactions to these same institutions whose swindles with fiat currencies have made them a vector for theft by fraud simply creates of cryptos a new vector for that exact same problem.
I have no interest or intention of allowing HSBC, Goldman Sachs, or Japanese banks to involve themselves in my transactions. That's why I don't have a bank account, and why I don't use any exchange or provide any KYC to any entity whatsoever.
Thanks!