Fiat currencies are not ideal but are the best known currency tool to date.

I commonly hear that blockchain-based currencies can be a good replacement for fiat currencies. But current examples of blockchain-currencies are either company-sponsored or community-based. This again puts a big weight on a single actor. I'd rather trust the admin of money to a government than a company or a community of anonymous economists/technologists.

Finally, the ability go debase (I assume you mean devaluating) a currency is (arguably) a desirable characteristic. During crises, responsibly devaluating a currency can help a country's economy.

> Fiat currencies are not ideal but are the best known currency tool to date.

By what metric?

>Finally, the ability go debase (I assume you mean devaluating) a currency is (arguably) a desirable characteristic. During crises, responsibly devaluating a currency can help a country's economy.

I'm skeptical that any benefit this brings outweighs the catastrophic damage it causes when misused. E.g. Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe.

As described in the article, we are living in a period known as the Great Moderation, a previously unforeseen time of financial stability, low unemployment, and lack of Major depressions. Bringing up autocratic developing countries isn't a great counterexample to the level of welfare we've been privy to in the developed world.

Is there an unconventional currency (to contrast your statement) that comes with either inherent value or trustless system? I'm genuinely curious what you meant.

If you consider Bitcoin unconventional (I would), it qualifies as a trustless currency.

What is meant by "trustless" here?

You don't have to trust any counterparty, everything is able to verified checking a hash output or key pair.

Lots of crypto is trustless, they just don’t have inherent value.

At this point gold and silver could be considered heterodox.