Each scenario has such a vanishingly small likelihood that it seems pedantic to debate them.
A more likely scenario is that we retain market economies and national currencies, with more or less corruption, more or less rule of law and more or less authoritarianism. Bitcoin would still exist but it wouldn't replace national currencies.
It seems that during periods of more corruption, less rule of law and more authoritarianism, we'll see more use of state power to debase national currencies for the benefit of the clique currently in power, with financial repression and confiscation for political adversaries and those not in the clique.
During times like this, an asset that is independent of the clique, digital, borderless, and difficult to detect, debase or confiscate might be a more secure way to protect the savings of the little guy and the big guy alike.
You could make the argument that gold is also for rich people, but no one seems to have a problem with it.
Any unregulated and unconstrained reputation system tends to lead to Zipf-type distributions. What that means for an economy is extreme power at the high end and lots of poverty at the low end.
Thus either there would be no control at all of the economy, or that control would go to the whales by virtue of their very gravity.
The former would be bad, because the system would effectively be blind to many things that political power handles (e.g. externality). And the latter would be worse, because there's no reason to believe that these powerful entities would care about the powerless.