Helping the the wealthy opt-out or circumvent bad policy reduces the incentives to improve government policy. A short term win for individuals becomes a long term loss for society.
This is true even in wealthy societies: see private schools, privatized healthcare, private transport.
I've seen reports that poor people stuck in Venezuela have used Bitcoin to take payments for remote work and then to send payments overseas for expenses such as the purchase of a computer (necessary to keep working) that would have been impossible through government-sanctioned means because the government of Venezuela felt it necessary to prevent "hard currency" from leaving the country, which effectively made it impossible for Venezuelans without personal connections to those in power to buy things like computers at all (since Venezuela of course does not have domestic production of computers). Argentina would be another example of another government that had similar controls to prevent hard currency from leaving the country (probably no longer in place, but probably were in place for decades).
I'm not pro-cryptocurrencies, but assessing their impact is not as simple as you and others here imply.
I'd say that the advantage for Venezuelans has more to do on having a cheap and fast way of transferring money than the cryptocurrency itself. IIRC an article that I read pointed that crypto holdings in there where very short lived, meaning people didn't keep the coins as a way of savings
This is true even in wealthy societies: see private schools, privatized healthcare, private transport.