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.
"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." In that harsh regard, that extremely limited definition, then these "Federal Reserve Notes" in my hand aren't money either -- for if I attempt to deposit $10,001 of such notes in the bank, all sorts of restrictions are thrown up. It's no longer a free exchange -- there is a higher transaction cost, and the regulatory visiiblity makes me unable to use the Notes universally -- so too with all the laws and regulations that damn me for carrying too much cash -- that only -- in my travels.
I can wear a more valuable belt buckle than carry the "Notes" in my wallet onto a plane traveling over the border.
The absurdity you claim of comparing scrip to dollars is unfounded beyond your own personal invented constraints and incredibly scrimped definitions. Scrip does compare to dollars, in generalized example, and even in actual reality to limited extents.