No. There are always theoretical edge cases to everything and I'm sure you'd love to turn these from theoretical into practical which is what I'm inviting you to do. If I take a piss in the Atlantic Ocean someone could make a case for me having 'polluted the seas'. It would be practically ridiculous but theoretically true.

Similarly, there comes a point in the fungibility of money where far more de-anonymising can be done from information gleaned outwith the medium (blockchain) then from within it. The goal is to push fungibility at least to that point. Dash pushes it umpteen orders of magnitude beyond it.

The beauty of the Dash approach to anonymity is that is follows the cash paradigm rather than the credit money paradigm which means it deploys a continual recycling of the anonymisation process in full public view to maximise fungibility. The credit paradigm simply "hides" everything from view because in that world, addresses are synonymous with people. There is no fungibility because there are no tokens to view. Another aspect of its approach is that it retains compatibility with the Bitcoin technology ecosystem - this policy is now turning out to have worked to a significant advantage in propelling useability to the forefront in terms of wallets, 3rd party support and so on.

Money is not, has never been and never will be based around some kind of 'secret cyphering system' of the type you are constantly alluding to as desireable - at least unbacked, trustless, publicly accountable electronic tokens won't be. But feel free to keep trying to flog that horse if you want. You'll only discover that value is a prerequisite to "privacy". It doesn't work the other way around.