I know many here aren't enthusiastic about Bitcoin (or crypto-currency in general), but I truly believe this opinion to be misinformed (or possibly, bank-backed shilling).
Agreeably, none of the crypto's are perfect (Transaction capacities, monopolisation, etc). But the security for an established crypto (e.g. Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Dash) would be incredibly difficult to hijack, and almost impossible if rates of adoption (and thus, mining profitability) increase substantially. (In Bitcoin's case, the Core development might actually be subverted, so I'm not proposing this as the ONE to adopt.)
Another critique I've seen leveraged against Bitcoin is that it's already monopolised. I believe this is largely true.
However, there are many other Crypto's which are not monopolised (Litecoin only bears a market cap of ~$200M at time of writing, Dash $80M, Monero $29M, so the opportunity for cheap adoptance by us is there).
For all the criticisms of the Crypto's (some valid most, in my opinion, mis-informed), it still detracts greatly from the power of the banks to coin money from thin-air. And (51% attack excepting) disallows them from controlling who transacts to who on the network. Once one has crypto's, they are essentially granted the capability to trade between other crypto's with ease (shapeshift.io is an example of a centralised, not-quite-completely anonymous, exchange that allows this. A decentralised anonymous exchange named Bitsquare is currently in development.)
There is a lot of instability world-wide at present and if a melt-down of the Global USD Reserve system occurs, people will need an alternate currency to trade in. The crypto's are decentralised, near-instantaneous (in some cases) and depend only upon the Internet. If Internet goes down or is unavailable, the Crypto's WILL fail. The precious metals are a good recourse if this happens, so I am not discouraging the purchase of these (I do however think that the "paper-backed" representation of these which likely will not be redeemable in a SHTF scenario). But, provided the Internet remains, the crypto's are undoubtedly our best choice in supplanting the present currency system to enable international exchange of goods.
Bitcoin's transaction capacity is currently capped at around Five Transactions/Second. Not nearly enough to meet Global Demand if it were to become the World-wide currency. A solution, known as the Lightning Network, aims to mitigate this, allowing a layer to be built on top of Bitcoin that will allow Visa-capacity transactions per second (on the order of many thousand transactions per second). Admittedly, the timeline of this Lightning Network is not looking too optimistic and we might not have this until sometime next year (which might still be too optimistic). I also feel that they might be stalling this tech deliberately, but another Crypto is sure to implement it sooner if they do not.
As Cryptos are easily exchangable, trading between them is not a problem. In my opinion, it's quite likely that crypto-exchange will be made completely transparent to the front-end user (e.g. Dash to USD might be a two hop process - Dash TO Bitcoin TO USD) and most Crypto's will be capable of this, so it matters not which one comes to the fore-front so much.
So, to destroy the power of banks, why not start meme-magicking the idea of Crypto-currency? Doesn't have to be any in particular, just the idea of Cryptos as the solution to destroy the banker's capability to coin from thin-air. SOME people do seem to be waking up to the banking. Normies will accept whatever is propagandized to them.
Why are we not propagandizing this to them?