You say "had intrinsic value". Well, I respectfully do not agree once again. Intrinsic value means something inseparable from the whole or part of the property of that thing. So the private keys of "ReplicaCoin (tm)" still exist, yet they possess no value today, hence it's not intrinsic to those bits of data themselves.
The value, if any, was transient, and derived from its speculative use as a potential currency.
Would you argue then that gold has intrinsic value? Wheat has intrinsic value which satisfies our natural need for hunger, it isn't very good though as a currency. I think Gold and Bitcoin have similar values that make them good currencies and currencies satisfy an intrinsic (or natural) need that humanity has to trade things. If people decided not to use gold as a currency then its value would plummet as well.
I would argue yes Gold has intrinsic value which satisfies humanity's natural or intrinsic need to trade. Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency for that matter) satisfies the same need. Fiat money satisfies that need (albeit poorly). Silver and Platinum and copper and other metals live side by side with gold because they offer something unique that gold doesn't. Bitcoin was first and no competing cryptocurrency has offered anything substantially better thus far.