Look it's
"scrip" not "script".
And I'm generalizng the company store model -- in our fiat money system what HAS happened is that the closer people and groups of people to the fiat money issueing authority have come out over time with a considerable advantage in fiat wealth due only to getting first whacks at the "scrip" and leveraging of it.
It's not a distributed system ... it's a centralized system. That centrality, by some measure, is just like the "owner" of the mine and the company store.
I can only help you so far in dealing with the conceptualization of abstractions -- if you could drop the chip on your shoulder it might help.
It is a false generalization. A universally accepted currency is not the same as company money. It just isn't. I have no problem with abstractions when they are reflective of the phenomenon they are intended to clarify. Comparing scrip to dollars is totally absurd.
A restricted currency is not the same as money except in very limited ways. Food stamps are not money, coupons are not money, gift certificates are not money.
You describe an inflationary issue of currency and make that the standard model. It is not. When the Continental currency was issued the effects were as you describe because the population's inflationary expectations eventually overwhelmed the money illusion as Keynes would describe it.
That is not the case now when there is little if any inflation.
It order to be taken seriously you must be accurate and lay off the hyperbole bordering on hysteria.
When I see ridiculous statements I may not be as gentle as you would like.