I have no idea what "permissionless composability" means. "Permissionless" isn't even a word (without permission or permission-less to be pedantic), and I can think of several overlapping contexts that those words could be meaningful in finance and/or software.
The problem is the language you're using sounds like bullshit.
Ah, sorry! Mea culpa. Permissioned vs. permissionless systems has been used for so long in my circles that I thought it was a thing...
Even "DeFi" systems may not be permissionless, though. It's just that the permissions are visible constraints (ie. in the code) -- not just randos deciding to deplatform you because, you know, "reasons".
This is an emerging risk to eg. Ethereum. Now, most "Staking" validators are "OFAC compliant". Does this mean that eventually the Ethereum blockchain will orphan any wallet that contains any Eth that went through the Tornado Cash mixer?
What if you decided to compose the Tornado Cash mixer into your payment app, to maintain some anonymity in the face of a repressive regime say throwing gay people off roof tops? Would you consider a permissionless system bad, in that case? Because, OFAC decrees that you are currently a criminal (and guilty without charge or trial) if you do so. What if they decide, next week, that whatever you do presently use is now verboten?
So, these concepts aren't "bullshit"; they are a present, serious concern to free peoples around the globe.
Just a meta note, what I'm saying is that you need to work on your communication. This reply is logically disjoint and succumbs to the problem that I was mentioning - the use of imprecise and confusing language or jargon. If you combine that with jumps to conclusions and pretend certain things are self-evident, it sounds like bullshit. It's how hucksters talk.
I didn't say that what you were talking about was bullshit. I said the language you used made it sound like it.
The problem is the language you're using sounds like bullshit.