The intangible asset classification (like goodwill) raises the question whether any (all?) digital money would be classed as intangible wouldn't it?
FASB and IFRS are standards not law. More error from the fledgling Legal Beagle. Although, tax carryovers from goodwill could be construed as property interests but that is most likely totally outside the scope of this discussion.
Like the digital money held in databases of MegaBank corp on deposit for loyal customers, wouldn't that be an "intangible asset" by the same reasoning as bitcoin is an intangible asset?
No. FRN$ can be titled just like real property, such as a house, can be titled. There is a
chain of title whether recorded or not. Just because the title exists both physically and digitally does not necessarily make the underlying asset 'intangible'.
The issue is whether 'bitcoins' can be owned or titled? There is clear law on banking and deposits, etc. including areas like
escheat. Bitcoin is governed under the MIT license and 'bitcoins' are just math equation outputs. The argument against property ownership in bitcoins is akin to just like you 2+2=4 and Person A cannot claim title to '4' so likewise the 'bitcoins' in an address are like '4'. Therefore, 'bitcoins' and 'bank deposits' are different when it comes to property interests.