I agree that a debate on the fundamental value of socialism vs anarchism could easily degenerate into a debate of ideology with both sides taking positions that are difficult to prove or falsify. I cannot resist adding, however, that the socialist position would start with your exact same quote with the mere substitution of the word anarchism for socialism. We agree that I am more socialist-leaning and you more anarchist-leaning. I strongly suspect that if we amused ourselves with such a debate it would eventually lead us right back to where we started (Contentionism) so lets set that aside for now and focus areas of disagreement more likely to be fruitful.  
  

Force is not the only competitive advantage of digital fiat (although it may be the only competitive advantage of centralized government). Fiat is not limited to government. Potentially digital fiat can also try to leverage the opportunity cost associated with monetary debasement.

You argue that there is no cost associated with the monetary debasement via proof of work because this debasement is needed to redistribute from large capital concentrations back to producers. Furthermore you correctly argue that without such debasement, we end up with the 1% aggregating all wealth and a feudal Dark Age.

I agree with your conclusion regarding the need for debasement. However, you have failed to show that such debasement must be done entirely via proof of work. If there is a competitive alternative means of debasement then there is an opportunity cost in the process of directing all monetary debasement into proof of work.

I believe digital fiat can potentially capture some market share by leveraging this opportunity cost. Let me give you a theoretical example. Hypothesize that in the future currency is dominated by a distributed cryptocurrency with proof of work and an optimal monetary debasement rate. A well run non-profit could then introduce a centralized fiat CharityCoin. This coin would undoubtedly copy wholesale most of the features of the leading cryptocurrency (as you stated the advantages of centralized economies of scale will never be techonological). CharityCoin's would have the same rate of monetary debasement as the leading cryptocurrency, but without proof of work it could redirect that monetary debasement towards different ends. Some of that debasement would have to be given back to the currency holders to compensate them for the risk of holding a centralized asset (proof of stake type system). However, if CharityCoin can run a sufficiently lean open and trustworthy organization presumably some of CharityCoin's monetary debasement could be directed to pay for the goals of the organization in this hypothetical case welfare for the destitute. Similarly other fiat coins could also exist as long as they were well run and paid the currency holders (via monetary debasement) a sufficient premium to justify the risk of holding the coin.

Proof of work will not achieve the end goal of redistribution in the short term. As long as the 1% have a cartel on the energy industry they will still be able to redirect most of the gains from a proof of work monetary debasement back to themselves. I believe that a proof of work currency system will facilitate the gradual erosion of this cartel over time but this process is likely to take decades. Until the cartel is dismantled proof of of work will not effectively perform the redistribution function and this will need to be done via socialism.