I think I can agree to disagree. I believe the execution is simple and will lead to a stable lasting outcome. The problem is, there are fewer and fewer who remember asset backed currency. The reason Nixon took us off the gold standard was powerful banking interests knew they could.
I think you responded to the wrong thing, but that's okay. Anyway, I definitely don't agree with properly valuing the currency by basing a currency on things that make sense. My only aim is to point out the limits of backing the currency with solely gold or even just silver and gold. As an example, who in their right mind would do international business with someone by way of shipping ounces of metal across an ocean when they can settle instantly and without all of the added fees in a digital manner? This is but one question of this type. I could also bring up remittance, bulk transactions or things that need to be instant in day to day commerce. Either way, I don't exactly think we're at odds. I just think the idea you're echoing has room to grow.
The problem with using tokens as currency is fraud. Counterfeit currency is always a problem. Even gold plated tungsten has been used. In the case of federal reserve notes, the (((banks))) themselves create their own counterfeit currency.
Maybe you're right, but it's a better alternative to what we're working with at present and for a variety of reasons. Also, I meant to say I don't disagree with you.
(post is archived)