05-03-2016, 10:30 AM
On this site, even those of us who don't wholeheartedly embrace some implementation of a gold standard are somewhat familiar with the arguments advanced in favor of gold as money, as a unit of value, as a bulwark against inflation and hidden taxation, etc. Historically, even those who have agreed that pure fiat monetary regimes are unacceptable have differed on specific policies when it comes to sound money (bimetallic standards, for example). Is gold an ideal store of value? Or could we imagine a better substance on which to build a currency regime? I'd like to see what criteria people would set for an ideal non-fiat system. Here's what I've come up with so far:
2. Limited in natural supply, all natural reserves discovered, and impossible to produce artificially;
3. Following on (2), widely perceived as valuable or even essential for reasons not dependent on the current state of technology (other than the technology to theoretically create it, which per (2) should be impossible;
4. Distinguishable from other substances;
5. Easily transported, yet difficult to confiscate.
Would anyone else disagree with or add anything to the above? I'm wondering whether cryptocurrencies are not superior to gold.