The problem with these sort of arguments is that if you assert that Bitcoin is somehow inevitable or unique as a Schelling point, this actually breaks the rest of the game theory of Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin were to ever become a “generally agreed upon unit of account” that we could rely on to remain that unit of account, it’s almost immediate that a coalition would form to monopolize it. Power is a coordination game, and the years or decades of coordination getting folks to agree that Bitcoin is THE unit of account would not be undone by a much smaller group of miners, world leaders and VCs quickly coordinating to monopolize it. Some people fantasize this might lead to a “hash war” or something, but such a hash war would not last long, as a hash war is not a stable equilibrium; coalitional game theory suggests this would end almost immediately with some 51% coalition taking the prize.
This is the paradox of hyperbitcoinization: If Bitcoin becomes inevitable it becomes vulnerable. As long as Bitcoin can fail, there’s less incentive to attack it.