Even if it is better for the banks if cash goes, and by the way I do not accept that, there is no grand conspiracy by them to get rid of it. The change is being led by us the public.
Yes and no, there's a definite (and intentional; by the banks) muddling of cause and effect.
Banks are rapidly closing physical branches (which I grant you isn't entirely related to less cash usage), which suits them just fine as building rents, utilities, and staff wages take a massive chunk of profits. The branch closures are often justified by the banks saying, well, 95% of our customer base primarily access their account using the app and online banking, footfall in branches is down, and so on. Which is a disingenuous argument when you note that this has been preceded by the banks themselves diverting their customers toward online banking, reducing counter services, cutting opening hours, and so on. The more branches you close, the fewer customers bank in-branch, which is then used as justification for further closures.
Similar arguments were made in the early days of self-service supermarket checkouts: "the majority of our customers use them!" - yeah, because you removed most of your tills and the two that are staffed have queues around the shop floor!
What I'm saying is that businesses both respond to,
and create, customer behaviour. If it's in their interests to do so, why wouldn't they!