Philosophically yes, it's a helpful shared illusion.
On a practical level (within this shared illusion) neutrality aka fungibility is one of a handful prerequisites that differentiate money from (social) credit or other forms storing value.
Discussion
Sure, but it all operates within this shared illusion in which any seemingly objective factor or prerequisite is still just part of the lore, which feeds the agreement, which is everything. Like for Bitcoin, there’s only 21 million. But that is just part of the lore. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet. I could make a currency right now with 26 tokens, each locked to an alphabet letter. It would have no value. Because it hasn’t accumulated agreement. Therefore the value is 100% in the agreement and 0% in the objective constraint, be that objective constraint 21 million or 26.
It's all marketing in the end. Whichever money has the best marketing has the most value. And if a neutrality narrative helps the marketing today then great for today, but it might not help the marketing tomorrow. It all just depends on what people want to hear at a given time.