Yes, if crypto actually became popular for international money transfers, it seems almost inevitable that it would acquire the same kind of regulatory regime that already exists for Western currencies. The exchanges can be compelled either directly or by choking their banking relationships.
As I've seen pointed out on crypto Twitter, the net effect of a public blockchain ala Bitcoin is that the actions of large whale accounts(hence oligarchs etc.) are highly visible and constitute prizeworthy targets for everyone who wants to take a shot(regulators, thieves, etc). Small accounts and transactions don't raise the same level of alarm. While you can try to spread out your balance among many wallets and small movements, that makes it logistically difficult to move money - more seeds to store and track, more transactions taking place, lower liquidity. People who succeed in grand on-chain heists have trouble doing anything with it...because everyone knows.
So Bitcoin therefore ends up being more useful to ordinary Russian citizens under sanctions than it does for oligarchical, globe-spanning wealth; the exchanges hold a similar role to the banks and can be brought to heel, but at a small scale you can self-bank. There's always a leak in the system because of this, even if you brought down the hammer on every exchange. Destroy Bitcoin and it'll just mushroom up again in some other form.
Crypto is game-theoretically useful even to elites who suspect they're under threat of being frozen out; they might not be able to keep 100% of what they have, but even 0.1% of vast riches is enough to sustain a comfortable life for some time. And if they lobby to keep exchanges open, they have the possibility of keeping more. This explains why there hasn't been a strong global consensus on crypto yet.
