Of course, one can envision social systems that dispense with money and establish access to goods and services in a highly labour specialised society according to other rules. But, as long as we cannot dispense with money, better to see it as having a pure information nature.

Btw, the definition of fiat money (currency) is a money (currency) that is only convertible to itself. If one goes to a central bank with a five units fiat currency note, they will not convert the note to gold or other currency. They will convert it to another five units fiat currency note. Of course, they will *exchange* the currency note by another currency’s note at the present exchange rate. Issuing credit money in a currency is as fiat as the currency and is best viewed as a delegation of the government’s power to issue currency.

In this sense, money is an information commons and it should be managed as such, like, eg. knowledge. There are similarities and differences, but a striking similarity is that both knowledge and money are made artificially scarce, by today. Jean-François Noubel has for a long time made a case again money scarcity, advocating the use of alternative or complementary currencies, in a going off-system fashion. But there is a key point here not having enough consideration: a government has the power to designate a given currency as the sole redeemer for its taxes. This gives such currency a monstrous advantage over any other currency, reinforced by the nature of money being a natural monopoly over a given social space. Therefore, the in-system quest for government democracity (whichever one considers government should be) is, at a large social level, unavoidable.

The above is not intended to be a criticism to the post – excellent in many respects – but rather a contribution.

HTH