for USA payers if the IRS and Congress decide they will treat it as an appreciable asset. If so, any time you make a payment you might find yourself with a capital gains liability and need to know that basis for that little bit of cryptocurrency you just transferred.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/virtual-currencies
https://cryptotrader.tax/blog/the-traders-guide-to-cryptocurrency-taxes
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2019ntf-35.pdf

The last one also has, for me at least, something of a surprising statement. Crypto apparently has been around since the 70s and used by military and intelligence agencies. Then again, I don't think I should be surprised to hear pretty much all the neat technical stuff didn't start with military and intelligence money.

Its pretty traceable. Cash and gcs are way less traceable.

Gee, this sounds kinda like a politician might have thought of it as a way to "sell" the intrusive uptick of MORE governmental intrusion into our finances.

(above was written in sartalics)

is if its a business account.  Businesses can deposit and withdraw cash on a daily basis and it doesn't trigger any notification unless the aggregate amounts are more than you are reporting for gross revenues on your corporate tax returns or that there are substantial fluctuations from the norm that are not self-explanatory.  You have to make it look like its all in the ordinary course of business.  Otherwise, its flagged for potential money-laundering.  Computers are also programmed to flag larger transactions that are out of the ordinary for that kind of business or that look suspicious.  These laws for businesses are already on the books and are not part of the new law on personal accounts.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think is missing #2 to be money laundering:  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/money_laundering
Money laundering refers to a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money. The money laundering process can be broken down into three stages. First, the illegal activity that garners the money places it in the launderer’s hands. [Condition 1 maybe applies unless "Money is for my time and companionship only" works. Maybe "Money is for my time, companionship and consulting services only."]  
Second, the launderer passes the money through a complex scheme of transactions to obscure who initially received the money from the criminal enterprise. [I think Condition 2 doesn't apply if the proceeds from the consulting go directly into her business or personal bank account.] Third, the scheme returns the money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way. [Condition 3 might not apply because she is just spending money in her bank account. "Move along people. Nothing obscure
to see here. Simple deposits and withdrawals. Move along, please."]  
.
Does that argument work? Now, if someone has accumulated $250,000 of unreported income and wants to buy a house and THEN tries to come up with crazy stories ("I found it in a shopping bag in the park last week. I'm going to pay taxes on it." "My relative gave it to me in cash just before they died last week. I'm going to pay taxes on it." "My Halloween collections were REALLY REALLY good this year. I'll pay the taxes." ...). THAT would be attempted money laundering, trying to hide the source of money through complex schemes and (made up) transactions.  
.
As people often point out, Al Capone wasn't taken down for murdering, robbing or bootlegging. He was convicted of tax evasion. (I don't think there were money laundering statutes back then.)