I agree with part (1) but there's no reason (1) implies (2).

After all, Chuck-E-Cheese tokens fit a large part of the definition in part (1). After all they're non-sovereign, limited issuance, global, immutable and decentralized. But you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes that implies Chuck-E-Cheese tokens are an insurance policy against monetary and fiscal policy irresponsibility from central banks and governments globally.

The phrase "limited issuance" applies to bitcoin far more than it applies to chuck-e-cheese and given the rest of your comments it's clear you already know this. It seems you've decided you hate bitcoin and you're happy to use whatever argument justifies that opinion no matter how flimsy.