Good thought, and I like where that article is going.

There are many relics from the old way of thinking about things. From the days of gold to fiat, the idea of "backing" became important. Then Bitcoin, analogous to gold, came along with the 21M coin limit. That said loudly to those familiar with gold vs. fiat that "no politician can inflate this at their whim." However, ultimately what matters isn't that there's a hard limit, but that the limit is neutral, as you say, and (as a consequence of neutrality) quite predictable with low inflation.

I say "quite" predictable because if (if!!) there were ever an absolute need to change the issuance schedule, say due to sidechains disrupting mining, it could would only be done in a neutral way since people would freely decide which schedule to adopt so it wouldn't be political. The result would never be chaotic or result in high inflation or the enrichment of some politically connected people at the expense of others. That doesn't sell quite as well as the 21M coin limit (which is sort of false because of mining fees), but since ultimately people just need sound money (neutral money), and we have decades to go between now and then, the nuances should be more appreciated by then, especially when Bitcoin is mainstream and not fighting just to be noticed.