Just because crypto doesn't offer chargebacks doesn't mean that the customer is not legally entitled to a refund. Depending on the jurisdiction of the merchant and the customer there are a number of scenarios where the merchant is legally obliged to providing a refund. For example, in Germany when a minor makes the purchase, the transaction may be invalid and the merchant has to refund the money.
The payment was final. The purchase was not. The refund is another payment.
"But the state can still compel you to pay back". Yes, sure it does. The point is that the cost of doing it now is much higher and it is enough to deter a lot of opportunistic, fraudulent behavior from consumers. This difference in cost can make or break a business.
> So you end up with a system that most people won't touch, and only appeals to users who need to make shady transactions.
It can also appeal to applications where payers and payees have some sort of social capital at stake. Patreon is the perfect example for that. If Patreon could offer the possibility of making payments via crypto with reduced fees, don't you think that people would do it?
It also can appeal for the use cases where the value of the transaction is too low for payers to worry about the "insurance" provided by the credit card networks, but that merchants need to be protected. E.g, selling digital goods online. Imagine you want to sell a book online and charge $2. With crypto would be easy. With a credit card, not so much.
Finally, it also would make sense for transactions where people would rather risk losing the money over their privacy. E.g, if Ashley Madison had a crypto option, how many of its users would use it just to be sure that their names would never end up on a list?
