I have been saying for a long time that "only bills issued against (real) value, thus backed by real goods (and services that are available now or in the short-run}, are valid credit (instruments for a general circulating currency). Credit needs to be quantified by defining a measure of value in terms of specified quantities of one or more basic commodities. Historically, gold and silver have been favorites for that role. Bitcoin, being an artificially created (virtual) commodity, is no better because it has no use value other than its ability to securely cross borders and boundaries. But there are better ways to achieve that function without wasting energy and rewarding "miners" who got there first.
Regarding the question of how to quantify credit, no single commodity will ever provide the stability we need—not gold, not silver, not Bitcoin. The best we can do is to define the unit of account based on a “market basket” of basic commodities that are important consumables or inputs to production and are regularly traded in relatively free markets. I’ve defined that sort of unit in my monograph at https://beyondmoney.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/appendix-b.pdf.
Tom, we agree on the bills part and the limitation of issuance by real goods in production.
However, Bitcoin is indispensable. The political powers benefiting from fiat money would kill your proposed Cofex vehicle (and destroy you on the way) even faster than they suppressed the gold standard.
The cost of energy, halving every 4 years, ensures that Bitcoin remains beyond the reach of nation states and their mostly corrupt political caste, while it monetises.
Last, the stability of a money is derived from its credit superstructure. Denominating currency in a "useful" good would introduce harmful volatility. Bitcoin has a superior stock to flow ratio to avoid such erratic influence.
(PS: The true tradeoff of energy spent vs. mining actually enabling MORE renewables is badly misrepresented by propaganda of fiat proponents.)
I have been saying for a long time that "only bills issued against (real) value, thus backed by real goods (and services that are available now or in the short-run}, are valid credit (instruments for a general circulating currency). Credit needs to be quantified by defining a measure of value in terms of specified quantities of one or more basic commodities. Historically, gold and silver have been favorites for that role. Bitcoin, being an artificially created (virtual) commodity, is no better because it has no use value other than its ability to securely cross borders and boundaries. But there are better ways to achieve that function without wasting energy and rewarding "miners" who got there first.
The paper I presented last November to the RAMICS conference in Rome describes how a credit currency that is redeemable by the bearer for real useful goods and services can be tokenized for general circulation. A brief video that describes it is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/8uX6ZoH_dFs?si=1BhdkvZ8dgRI8zyi. The full paper can be read at https://beyondmoney.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/544776-invoice-factoring-greco.pdf.
Regarding the question of how to quantify credit, no single commodity will ever provide the stability we need—not gold, not silver, not Bitcoin. The best we can do is to define the unit of account based on a “market basket” of basic commodities that are important consumables or inputs to production and are regularly traded in relatively free markets. I’ve defined that sort of unit in my monograph at https://beyondmoney.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/appendix-b.pdf.
Tom, we agree on the bills part and the limitation of issuance by real goods in production.
However, Bitcoin is indispensable. The political powers benefiting from fiat money would kill your proposed Cofex vehicle (and destroy you on the way) even faster than they suppressed the gold standard.
The cost of energy, halving every 4 years, ensures that Bitcoin remains beyond the reach of nation states and their mostly corrupt political caste, while it monetises.
Last, the stability of a money is derived from its credit superstructure. Denominating currency in a "useful" good would introduce harmful volatility. Bitcoin has a superior stock to flow ratio to avoid such erratic influence.
(PS: The true tradeoff of energy spent vs. mining actually enabling MORE renewables is badly misrepresented by propaganda of fiat proponents.)