[discostu]

I’m neither scorning nor quivering. I’m pointing out that backing is meaningless.

All money is fiat money. And gold has no intrinsic value. That’s actually part of what made it good money for so long. It was useless, so people wouldn’t use the money to do other stuff. Something people eat, or build houses or tools with makes bad money. It has to be useless, have no intrinsic value, for people to do nothing with it but spend it.

I’ve known absolutely that anybody that thinks backing money with anything has meaning is wrong for decades. Long before anybody even started thinking about crypto. History proves it. Money has only ever been backed by one thing: people’s willingness to take it.

[Rockingham]

Even before gold was used as currency, its rarity, unusual color, and other qualities made it valuable in jewelry and ornaments. Indeed, the ancient Incas had no money but considered gold highly valuable.

Again, with gold being valuable and dollars having the benefit of legal tender, why would you consider crypto with such backing to be inferior to crypto without it?