Yes, but what I mean is this: if someone would create a concept in which you'd stamp a coin on the bitcoin blockchain rather than a token, does that make it credible? I'd say no.

There is a weakness in thinking that coin > token instead of saying bitcoin > coin/token. That weakness is that shitcoiners will exploit your narrative because you've generalized, and why, after some years of watching all the abuse, the idea has become "if it isn't bitcoin, then it's a shitcoin". And even then, some will pitch their paper bitcoin, be it FTX, Saylor, BitGo-backed-bridges-to-shitchains or your favorite sidechain/misnomered-L2, as Bitcoin. And people fall for this shit, which is awful.

This is why there is no benefit to weakening this part of the maxi narrative, at all.