While this is true (a referendum is relatively easy to trigger) it's still rarely used indiscriminately.

Even though only 50'000 signatures are required to call for a referendum and potentially kill a law, significant resources are required during the referendum phase.

Referendums are usually carried by political parties (at least partially) and there's only so much money and man power they can pour into it.

There is a positive side effect in referendums in that it usually prevents extreme laws from being made by parliament. It also forces the parliament to compromise on a lot of issues, before a law is enacted.

You can argue that compromising is a bad thing. But don't forget that it's a big part of how Swiss politics happen. It's not a winner-takes-all system.

You can absolutely rule out a referendum:

In the Swiss political system, a referendum is a mean against a new law. However, a new law on or against e-currencies is not even on the horizon in Switzerland.

In a nutshell: No new law, no possibility for a referendum.

Not true, the mechanism allows for constitutional change. This includes:

- Same-sex marriage - A ban on building new minarets - Phasing out Nuclear Power (defeated) - Limitations on Executive pay and payouts - Abolishing compulsory military service

Frankly. I have limited insight into what the average Swiss person thinks of crypto-currencies.

However, I did find the average citizen has (relatively) strong views on finance, cash and the integrity of their financial system.

He's right.

A referendum is always called against a law enacted by parliament.

What you are referring to is called an initiative. Those are popular requests to change the constitution to (for example) allow same sex marriage.

even though the outcome may be the same (a popular vote) the mechanisms are quite different. (In German: Referendum vs Verfassungsinitiative).

A referendum on federal level requires 50'000 valid signatures, an initiative double as much.

I was just using the term you used in your first post - which seemed representative enough for me.

If your point was to argue that mechanism can't be used (but another can) then that seems unusually specific/technical.