because, like the paper money, crypto doesn’t have inherent tangible value

That’s wrong, “owning a number” is tangible value. That’s also why there are no (working) offline cryptocurrencies, double spending is a problem.

If by “works like the second” you mean that it doesn’t have physical form, then yeah, that’s in the name.

which, btw, still relied on a very centralized government existing anyway

A few of them, different ones, each making their own coins. So no.

because you can’t hold or do anything with 0s and 1s, nor can you physically keep it around.

Yeah, that’s a problem, but “fucking Chinese coins” in their value also were worth more than the metals they were made from. Sometimes those metals were not very meaningful for Europeans.

And using a mix of non-uniform coins for transactions was a thing for much of history in Europe too.

In any case, in absolutes of course nothing is like any other thing. If your argument fits under that, then don’t bother, it’s boring and useless.

In relatives - you can have a “half-offline” cryptocurrency, where you don’t need all the network (or good enough majority of it) to be accessible, just one partition (or even just portion) of it, to make a transaction. In theory. This can even seem like a “partitioned blockchain”, LOL. A tree of blockchains.

There are so many cryptocurrencies so honestly I don’t know if such has been made, but it would be useful.