You may like it or not but Bitcoin IS money
It is mostly used as a financial asset nowadays (which I always emphasize myself every time), but it fits the definition of money and does what this definition requires. And by its sheer existence, it proves that the government monopoly has been broken (the reasons why it happened I explained before). To successfully support your claim (i.e. that the state still keeps their monopoly on the issuance of money), you basically have to prove either of the following two points. First, that Bitcoin can't transfer value (I guess you won't deny Bitcoin existence as such, though who knows), or, second, that money is not about transferring value. And the latter is not my definition, just in case, since when money can no longer transfer value, it just ceases to be money. This is particularly true with respect to money tokens which have no value of their own, i.e. they are valued only as long as they can fulfill the function of money, that of transferring value
No, I don't have to, in order to support my claim that the state maintains a monopoly on money, which comes with all the incentives for the elites to destabilize their own system.
Because it's obvious that the state has the monopoly.
Prisoners use cigarettes to carry value and exchange them like money. Their cigarettes didn't break the back of the dollar. Neither has Bitcoin. (Although one day it might, if state money self-destructs due to the above incentives, but that day is not here yet, so the incentives are alive and well.)