This is also an arbitrary connection, remember that morals are subjective, what's moral to some is immoral to others, an easy example to understand is that of women breasts, in europe it is completely normal for women to go around topless in public beaches and community swimming pools, but in America (north, central and south, the whole continent applies this rules) a woman could get fined with public indecency because "it's immoral to be naked in public places", or we could also use a historical example such as that one of the Inquisition, they were all Christians but on the name of their saint cause it was completely moral to ignore completely the mandate "You won't kill" when it came to sins, they all should have been punished to death and the moral framework of the church was enough justification.
One could make the case that hard money in generals let's you focus on the things you like such as your own moral framework, but it's not something that comes with one, is Bitcoin fair money? You bet, is it better money? Of course! But we give it this definitions from our own understanding of fair and better.
I'd be sure that there's some Ethereum maxi out there talking about ETH and spirituality and how it's like water because water is the element of change and Ethereum always changes, thus being a the most moral money because their morla framework is that of constant change.
One could make the case that hard money in generals let's you focus on the things you like such as your own moral framework
I think this is actually all that is said. By saying that Bitcoin is Christian money Jimmy Song didn't mean "as opposed to Buddhist money" for example, for him Christianity is simply the familiar moral framework.
For example I can detect that your solution to the question of how could this happen:
Now, how does a person who's considered a philosopher, a good example of American right wing traditionalism, and a Bitcoin influencer, become FIAT AF ¹⁰ out of seemingly nowhere? Simple, he always was this kind of person,
is basically the same one that John came up with (1 John 2:19):
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
So I can say that your approach is similar to the Christian aproach. However I don't mean "as opposed to the Buddhist approach" because I simply have no idea what would Buddha say in this situation.