Questioning Bitcoin as Money, and a Case for Asset Backed Cryptos

I posted this in FB, but will hopefully get more thought out, and knowledgeable responses here on Steemit. (or haters :/) I am looking to see if my view is legitimate. Maybe it's just my preference for a certain type of money. I'm no expert in crypto, and have watched it from from the sidelines since the beginning.

Source: Time.com

I've been talking about money vs. currency for just about the entire time I've been on FB, and finally, thanks to bitcoin, people have started asking that question: What is money? If you're one of those people, consider this:

I never believed in Bitcoin (or any pure blockchain currency) as money; A democratic fiat currency (medium of exchange), yes. Blockchain technology is the best accounting ledger platform there is (so far), and tying it to real assets and services give it value. Not the token itself.

I don't consider someone mining (processing transactions) giving token any value. I see mining as payment to the transaction processor through inflation. <- I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong here, but it IS POSSIBLE to have a crypto that doesn't give a payout to the transaction validator, right? I'm aware that doing so wouldn't give anyone incentive to validate transactions, but I imagine they'd charge the parties involved instead, similar to PayPal.

Just like federal reserve notes, the tokens themselves are worthless without an underlying asset/service. Speculate all you want, and I now I realize this is how I missed the huge run-up in bitcoin.

IMO blockchain democratic fiat currency is better than untrustworthy debt-based, govt fiat currency, but it itself is still fiat -and isn't REAL money. Asset-backed currencies/tokens have value and can be money if people accept them. thoughts? How "off base" or "stupid" am I for thinking this way?