I came to a similar conclusion: The sole criterion for the viability of a currency is acceptance in trade.
This simple truism explains every currency that "works" and every one that didn't all at once.
It can be a terrible currency, but if it's generally accepted in trade, too bad. Governments can mandate it, but that won't always save it. Just look at Zimbabwe dollars. They were official. And all but worthless. USD is accepted worldwide, even though its based on less than even a shitcoin, and 90% of it doesn't physically exist according to the Fed themselves.
The full faith and credit of the the United States government is pretty solid.
> and 90% of it doesn't physically exist according to the Fed themselves.
That's how debt works
- to human beings (subject), food (object) has "intrinsic" value
- to Americans, US dollars have "intrinsic" value
- to Redditors, karma has "intrinsic" value
etc
Interesting aside -- this is also how falling in love works (overvaluation of the object via the subject's projection of value).
You wouldn't believe how rare it is for me to meet someone who agrees with this. I'm in leadership at a web3 company and I need to reiterate this point over and over again. NFTs don't have intrinsic value OR arbitrary value. ERC20s don't have intrinsic value OR arbitrary value. If it doesn't tie back into user psychology, it's not worth anything.
Interesting historical note is that one of Freud's original metaphors for understanding the nature of desire was the unconscious "investor" or "capitalist" who outlays affective charge to the conscious "entrepreneur", who relates to objects. This is known in the literature as Freud's "economic metaphor", which I've found immensely helpful in my own understanding.