The same was true for salt, and many more local kinds of money that existed.
It's also the same trust you need for fiat money. This, and trust that your government won't create a huge lot of it in an instant (slow rates of money creation are fine). Turns out that governments have a lot of leverage to enforce the first, more relevant kind of trust, so the total trust required decreases.
The idea of cryptocoins was to remove the trust on nobody creating a lot of money very fast. But in doing so, they also lost the leverage to enforce that people will accept it.
The innovation of bitcoin is precisely making this statement no longer true. The "property" might only be digital data, rather than physical things, so you can argue that it is no longer true in only a limited context, but it is not longer absolutely true.
Maintaining BTC itself requires physical inputs and physical property rights. You need fiat to buy energy. Your house with mining rigs needs enforcement of property rights.
> You need fiat to buy energy.
This is a circular argument and not true. You can buy energy today with gold or bitcoin.
The notion of property rights is only relevant with a central authority who is able to enforce it. Which could be a nation state, tribal chief or a lord. In the jungle you only own whatever you are able to defend. Even your own life.