No, it's not. If you really want a NAT there is no reason you can't use a NAT with ipv6. In fact, it can work even better because instead of using a random port for the translation, you can use a random ip address for each connection.
You're conflating the two parts of NAT: address translation and inbound filtering. A router can block any inbound traffic coming from WAN, even if the IPv6s on the LAN side are public.
In fact, hole punching for IPv4 shows this distinction. By default inbound traffic is blocked, but as soon as private host has opened up a connection, it is (indirectly) reachable and nameable (via the routers public IP + port).
BTW, static IPv4 NAT with public addresses on both sides exists as well.
And as you say, hole punching is still “PUBLIC IP” + port. Not an IP and any port you fancy unless the firewall was configured correctly.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe you’re confused, maybe IPv6 is just rubbish. Maybe all 3.
The default config of a SoHo router has both: (a) NAT44 separating public vs. private IPv4, (b) and also a firewall that blocks any unknown ingress traffic on IPv4 and IPv6.
From a security standpoint, it doesn't matter if the IP get translated inbetween. Only the ingress firewall counts: If the firewall is in-place both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic will be blocked. If you open up the firewall (via hole punching or port forwarding on IPv4, or via IP allows for IPv6), I can send packets to your public IPv4 + port and they will arrive at you private server, or I send them to your servers GUA IPv6 and it arrives. There is no security difference.
> From a security standpoint, it doesn't matter if the IP get translated inbetween. Only the ingress firewall counts
This is complete nonsense. Security is about layers and risk mitigation. You know what is better than firewall rules that can be misconfigured or overridden due to conflict or interface name changes and so on? An IP that can be addressed from global space. Wild!