"The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
I think you can make an even stronger statement:
"A distributed consensus ledger can only survive if it is successful as money."
Note that Bitcoin did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem because that problem is unsolvable. Bitcoin made it so that any successful attack is uneconomical. That only works if bitcoins are valued as money.
This means anything that tries to replace Bitcoin's functionality will either do so by being better money or else won't be a distributed consensus ledger.
Most early Bitcoin adopters agree that Bitcoin's properties make it money and that "BTC as valuable money" is necessary for the blockchain to function.
An issue for the next phase of adoption though is the next set of adopters
do not agree with this largely due to different political views on what constitutes money. Most people I know believe money can only be defined by a government and only functions if it is "managed" by a central body with the power to "expand supply to grow with the economy". (Nevermind this is never actually implemented in practice.) And so refuse to trust in anything else.
The argument that Bitcoin is money is not going to drive adoption, that only served to kick start adoption with politically aligned individuals.
Instead Bitcoin's usefulness as money will have to be the next driver for adoption. Either people find it easier to use online, or merchants offer BTC discounts, or people use Bitcoin to engage in illegal forms of trade, or automated services (bots) find BTC useful to trade, etc. This is where Bitcoin as a superior technology over fiat (a hundred year old technology) becomes a dominate factor.