I do get what you’re saying, but isn’t that really a transfer of fixed wealth, not the destruction thereof? If the wealth isn’t backed, it means somebody loses, but the fixed wealth remains only to be acquired by its creditors. No?
Fixed wealth has become a very difficult concept to define with the advent of electronic debt booked as assets.
To me, "fixed wealth" implies something you possess which cannot be simultaneously possessed by another (I have this double eagle, therefore you don't have it) AND which cannot be taken from you other than by force.
Not sure how much fixed wealth there is, but it's a lot less than most people seem to believe.