There's far too many completely contradictory claims about bitcoin going on here.  You have people like Sidhujag claim shitcoins are better than gold because they can be upgraded, thus making them the completely made up and meaningless word "anti-fragile".  My counter claim against him is that, no, that is not a benefit; money does not simply morph into something else at random because then it is non-fungible and there is no Schelling point either.

But it's not possible for shitcoins to be fungible in the first place even if they have built-in tumblers like Monero, simply due to the fact they can and HAVE to be modified constantly.  For example, the Theymos push to try and X-out Satoshi coins in old addresses that will eventually become anyone can spend.  Or the need to use Lamport signatures or whatever in the future.  There are virtually zero Satoshi posts backing up your viewpoint that the protocol as he released is somehow sacred.  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  He talked constantly about people doing things like altering block size and other variables in the future if/when needed.

You're generally pushing a fringe Popescu claim that just doesn't line up with reality.  Bitcoin has always been made up of completely arbitrary, magic numbers with nothing sacred about any of them, and it will never be fungible.  This is why physical metals are the Schelling point and not shitcoins, because physical metals are free of political power vacuums, while shitcoins are nothing more than social constructs subject to change just like the fiat dollar.