That is incidental, not bitcoin's fault, it's not a limitation, and it is actually a good thing from an investment standpoint because that means adoption has a long ways to go and thus it can become much more valuable.
But if you took the money somewhere else and wanted to buy a car, you could be like, 'hey, I want to buy a car for 1 BTC' and they might be like, "oh well I want $13k US dollars" and you could be like "Well 1 BTC is worth $13.7k, you can open a BTC wallet and get $13.7k and after fees you will make at least a $500 profit". And ya, they will have to interact with the bank, if they choose, or they can use their BTC to barter. You can go out and do the same thing to buy gold or silver and trade those things for cash if you need cash to buy things, but again that is incidental, not bitcoins fault, and it is not a limitation.
But ultimately, unlike what you said, the banks are NOT necessary for bitcoin to be used as money. The banks, fiat, all of it could disappear overnight and that would make crypto that much more valuable.
The reason it is a good example is because it is much more difficult to get that $10 mill to another country in the form of cash or wire transfers. It has about the same value once it gets there. I don't understand why this is a bad example.
