I don't really see how antagonistic bounty hunters can't be seen as "true villains". They serve as an opposition to the protagonist and can affect the course of a film. Whether they are motivated or not by money shouldn't really matter. This can be seen with Boba Fett who is responsible for everything that goes wrong for the protagonists in Empire Strikes Back. He tracks down Han Solo which causes Luke to prematurely confront Darth Vader. He did it solely for the money, but at least he's given motivation. Hans Gruber is often seen as one of the greatest villains In film and his motivation was also for money. This is because he serves as a great foil to John McClane. This brings me to Captain Phasma, why should she be seen as more of a villain than Zam? Zam Is by no means a high bar of villainy, but she actually offered resistance to the Jedi. Conversely, Phasma literally walks around and is responsible for the destruction of the Death Star knock-off. They could have easily made Phasma the one that fights Finn instead of the storm trooper. Instead, they heavily marketed her with nothing to show for it. Anything they do with Phasma from here on out will come across as awkward backpedaling.