Though crypto networks are often compared to private firms, a better analogy is to compare them to cities.
Like a city, a crypto network is a community of loosely affiliated individuals who agree on a set of rules for how they live and work - laws for cities, protocols for crypto networks.
Unlike firms, cities and crypto networks are organized from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Individual leaders matter more for firms than cities. Who the CEO of a firm is plays a major role in an investment decision, whereas who the mayor of a city is plays little role in a person's choice to move there. Many bitcoin investors can not name a single core developer, but that plays little role in the investment decision.
https://www.coindesk.com/worst-crypto-networks-will-biggest/So what then are you trying to say? You know what, there is no point of comparison because cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, is a class of its own. They are sui generis. In fact, they are not very well distinguished in our society to date. They are still at a hang in terms of its functionality and contribution to people across borders. Nonetheless, I see no point of where you are heading because it does not add to the body of knowledge that effectively addresses the current issue we have with cryptos vis-a-vis some governments, respectively. While I understand you want to assimilate cryptos to varying nouns to considerably relate it to the issue we have, I do not see it getting anywhere. As for me, though, the laxity of some governments over cryptos signals implied acceptance of technology.
