If a phone can make calls, send texts, read emails, and take pictures it already covers 98% of my use cases.

Bad analogy, but it will rhyme:

If a country can provide housing, roads, fire departments, public transit, etc. that might cover 98% of most people's use cases.

But perhaps that country is also fighting wars, committing genocide, perpetrating mass surveillance, propping up an oligarchy, manipulating currency, practicing authoritarianism, etc. ?

There might be points that need to be made and changes that need to be implemented, even if the average citizen or user doesn't directly see the impact or feel immediate exposure.

One of the reasons this is hard is that the general public doesn't understand the greater second and third order effects. And even if they do, they are typically inarticulate at expressing how this is dysregulated and dysfunctional to the broader economy and capitalism.

Luckily, there are plenty of very wealthy people that are disenfranchised by this that will loudly take up arms. Domestic competitors, business leaders, other impacted industries, etc. That's how and why this will change.

Tim Sweeney isn't the only one interested in this.

Banking basically has to be done via phone now.

If you never hang out with friends and pay them via a QR code, sure.