As I understand it, what Bondone highlitghts is that Gossen was the first to draft the concept of marginal utility, not that Menger, Jevons and Wieser were his disciples. And indeed, Bondone makes a big difference between Menger and the other economists, that´s why his theory is fully founded on Menger.
Regarding MoE, what Bondone claims is that MoE (and therefore currency) is always an economic good, it might be a present good (gold, cattle) or a future good (credit). On Bondone’s taxonomy the concept of Money is fully restricted to currencies that are present goods (which is a wider concept than a commodity). Therefore fixing Mises confusing taxonomy where gold and fiat currency are classified within the same category (money in the narrower sense), or extremely inconsistent concetps such as “credit-money” as it fuses one concept (money) and its “opposite” (credit) into the same thing (By opposite I mean that only present goods can extinguish credit).
Just think for a moment on the definition of credit: “Exchanging present goods for future goods”, but given that as of Mises “credit-money” and “fiat money” are present goods (when they are actually future goods), How can you theoretically demonstrate to a Keynesian or a Monetarist that the current monetary system is doomed to end up in a staggering skyscrapper of debt?
Although that conclusion might be obvious for you, with Mises taxonomy you don’t have the means to back your conclusion. Indeed, they can use Mises taxonomy to soundly rebut you.
Fortunately, Bondone provides the theoretical means and unlike Mises it is fully consistent. Not only provides the means for monetary taxonomy but for many other interesting concepts, but monetary taxonomy is a very good entry point for the people interested in Bitcoin.