What about the sovereign part? No one has total power over their money because its utility is always based in another's willingness to participate in the transaction.

If bitcoin existed before the Civil Rights movement in the US, it would not have helped people of color spend their money in "whites only" establishments or buy houses in white neighborhoods when (prior to 1948) a covenant could legally exclude a person of color from owning certain homes. And after 1948 the legal system could still be weaponized against such purchases, or if all else failed the buyer harassed or worse.

These are more extreme examples, but that sort of thing does still go on in places both in the US and elsewhere. Bitcoin or other crypto fall short of solving monetary censorship.

Separately, why does it matter where bitcoin was created? (especially given that we really don't know who created it anyway).

Market value is having someone else have control over the value of what you control. Market value may not be centralized, but it is the definition of something you do not control. This is my point. You cannot have full control over something that's value is dictated by an external entity, the entity being the market in this case. The concept of having "full sovereignty" over something that you don't control the value of, and the only purpose is to exchange for something of value, is non-sensical.

> bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs

How do you know?

Bc there is no way academics would not take credit for it. That's like expecting a fish not to swim.