What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
So there is nuance.
That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity.
But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here?
This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information.
And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.