> Either we use market-based mechanisms (which implies the existence of currencies), or else we turn to socialist-style central planning, in which the government gets to decide who has their aspirations fulfilled and who misses out.

There's nothing in socialism that requires central planning. In fact, there are forms of socialism (e.g. market communism) that explicitly include market mechanisms as one solution for allocation of resources.

So I tend to agree with you that currencies won't disappear until we're well past "basic post-scarcity" aka. nobody needs to go hungry or homeless. To get rid of currency entirely we likely need much more fundamental cultural changes and far more extensive abilities to create what we want.

I don't think "authenticity" will survive as a major driver that long past meeting sufficiently good virtual environments, because while it may have a certain charm, with "good enough" virtual environments, reality can be trounced in other factors. E.g. the real Mona Lisa is utterly unimpressive in person: It's tiny. You can't get really up close to it. Many people who have seen it - me included - mention being left thinking "that's it?" A "virtual Louvre" could easily present a "better than real" version of it that I suspect would quickly seduce people away from caring much about that authenticity.

A large part of why authenticity matters today is that we perceive it as better. But if the "authentic" experience consistently becomes drab and dull and trite compared to the copies, the appeal will gradually diminish.

Even so, in the intervening period, we can certainly move product and services between two categories: One where we merely care about tracking consumption to allocate resources to manufacture and distribution efficiently, but otherwise people can consume what they want, and one where we need to mediate and restrict use because we can not yet meet the full, unconstrained demand without sacrificing something else.