You are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist. Money is tender. Tender is money. There is no difference.
You are trying to ignore a distinction which does exist. The things that need to be transmitted for an entity to be a "money transmitter", under both state and federal law and regulations, are defined in those laws and regulations, and are not restricted to "legal tender". Because the effect of these provisions -- whether state or federal -- are not to regulate what is legal tender, insofar as they can be viewed as defining "money" for their own purposes, it does not touch on the reservation to Congress of the power to make things other than gold and silver "tender for debts".
If you REALLY want to split hairs and get technical, tender is money that is used to PAY for something.
Actually, no. "Tender for debts" is anything that, when given in settlement of a debt that already exists, discharges the obligation associated with that debt. Many circumstances of payment for something don't involve creating a debt (this is generally the case where the contract is accepted by payment.)
And I'll repeat my reply to the others who responded: Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if nobody within the States can legally use anything but gold or silver as legal tender.
And this is wrong, the cited provision of Congress reserves to Congress the power to make things other than gold and silver tender for a debt. When Congress does so (as, in fact, it has), courts in the states are obliged, by the Supremacy Clause, to accept that exercise of explicit Constitutional power. ("Use...as legal tender" is somewhat of a garbled concept, because "legal tender" isn't something that an object is used for, it is something that it is recognized as in law; having or lacking legal tender status doesn't affect whether or not you can use something in a particular way, it effects the legal effect of that use should the status of a debt be contested in court.)
These things were put in the Constitution for good reasons.
Yes, they were put in to prevent state-issued non-specie currency and simultaneously to guarantee the power of the federal government to issue non-specie currency.
If one were to accept your argument, the only conclusion would have to be that the founders just threw that in there for laughs.
Incorrect, as already explained. Conversely, if we were to accept your argument that "Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if nobody within the States can legally use anything but gold or silver as legal tender" that would require reading the explicit reservation of Congress of the power to declare things other than gold or silver as legal tender as a denial of that power to Congress, which is pretty bizarre, on top of the whole confusion about what "tender for a debt" means.