Not an argument I'd want to make if I were in the cryptocurrency game, the argument that not being able to sue the provider and not being able to get at an anonymous user leaving people with a cause to sue with no one to sue has been a persistent threat to Section 230, and while it hasn't been successful yet it hasn't been discredited either.Then have fun attempting to determine who you're suing when the right against self-incrimination has been held tantamount again and again and again.
I think Kenneth Zerzan started it, and most recently there was the Great Anonymous Comment Moral Panic of 2012, which I can't find a good summary of but which you probably remember, where a few states decided to try to do away with anonymous commentary entirely. None of which was successful, but "well someone should be vulnerable" seems to be an intuition among lawyers that isn't going away so saying "can't touch this" doesn't seem like a good idea unless you want to wave a red flag.