If you consider LIBOR rigging, money laundering, and tax evasion as minor violations I'd hate to think what you consider major. I'm not proposing shuttering as a first option of course, only in the cases of systemic criminal activity or when no amount of fines and pressure are producing the desired result (ie. the offender is unable to reform). Every country has to be able to retain that sanction for matters of national security and it's indeed a growing issue with transnational trade agreements.

The fines are getting results and they aren't going to shut down banks regardless of what you think, nor should they.

Let me refer you to http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf (Greenspan was of course a member of Ayn Rand's inner circle)

1973 doesn't qualify as long-term.

Fintech is nascent and still quite a few years out from making a proper dent that we can see but I have no doubt whatsoever that it will come. I can lazily refer you to these which probably represent a reasonable state of play now - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2014/12/14/15-fintech-startups-to-watch-in-2015/. The non-consumer focussed ones might well be viewed as smalltime early experiments but worth bearing in mind that the banks themselves are starting to take this seriously e.g. http://www.fintechinnovationlablondon.co.uk/

I'm sure it will come but it will be owned by the street by the time it's mature enough to make an impact. The one thing about banking is that it only really works if you have the money. No fintech startup is going to seriously disrupt bank business because they don't have a balance sheet. Now maybe if you got Apple or Google pushing into banking then you might have a case.