If it wasn't too much trouble, was hoping the Rav could tell me if I articulated the opinions correctly

According to the Rashbam:

Rav Huna rejects the ability of the creditor to collect here, b/c who knows who is the real creditor, maybe its the Raish Galuta and he dropped it.

Rabba says well maybe b/c by Gittin we have Hayom represent the day it shows up in Beit Din so too here Mimcha should represent the holder of the Shtar (assuming he could be a realistic creditor).

Abeyei says well maybe the Braita in Gittin is Rabbi Elazar and just like Edei Mesira take care of an unsigned Get so too they take care of an undated Get (since its only dated Mipnei Tikun Olam). Assuming that Hayom is written in it to prove that it was actually executed. Based on this Hayom can mean the day of execution and therefore we should be Choshesh for Nefila by our case of the anonymous Creditor.

Rabba says L'Nefila Lo Chashinan -- and that remains the Machloket between him and Abeyei -- but everyone agrees that only the original Creditor is entitled to collect with this Shtar. Rabba feels the possessor is the original Creditor and Abaye is unsure b/c of Cheshash Nefila.

According to Tosafot:

Rav Huna is Mesupak whether whoever is in posession of the Shtar (even if we know for sure he didn't lend the money, like the Raish Galuta) is able to collect or not (meaning only the original creditor).

Rabba says the answer is that by Gittin we have Hayom represent the day it shows up in Beit Din so too here Mimcha should represent the holder of the Shtar (so anyone in possession can collect).

Abeyei says well maybe the Braita in Gittin is Rabbi Elazar (and u don't even need Hayom unless there is a T'nai in or about the Get). Based on this Hayom can mean the day of execution and therefore we should be Choshesh for Nefila by our case of the anonymous Creditor and therefore Rav Huna's query remains intact.

Rabba says L'Nefila Lo Chashinan, but never addresses Rav Huna's original query. Tosafot says implicitly its addressed b/c Rabba does not believe that Rabbi Elazar is the author of the Braita due to the fact that it requires Hayom in the Get which is inconsistent with Rabbi Elazar's opinion (not like tosafot explained above) and therefore the conclusion is anyone in possession of the Shtar is assumed to be the Creditor (Lo Hashinan L'Nefila) or anyone in possession of the Shtar is entitled to collect b/c that is their right no matter who the original creditor was (wasn't sure which of these 2 conclusions were right from Tosafot).