[RobertoG]

"it matches with humanity's tradition too"

I suppose you mean with the traditional way money is explained, that is very probably wrong.

The idea that first was barter and then people started to use precious metals doesn't match the historical evidence.

There is strong evidence that money is invented in the first states in parallel with writing and numbers in order to register debts. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer : "Several centuries after the invention of cuneiform, the use of writing expanded beyond debt/payment certificates and inventory lists to be applied for the first time, about 2600 BC, to messages and mail delivery, history, legend, mathematics, astronomical records, and other pursuits.")

Metals (strong money) are not necessary and if fact was not the most used system for most part of the history (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick#Split_tally_in_Eng... )

So, the gold thing doesn't match humanity's tradition until very recently. This is controversial, I think, because it has political implications.

[creshal]

> So, the gold thing doesn't match humanity's tradition until very recently.

Ish. There's no unified "human tradition" anyway. Mediterranean societies have used gold- and other metal-based tallies for thousands of years, until they eventually settled on (gold, silver) coins as a standard. Greek/Roman conquests and trade then spread the idea.

[RobertoG]

But my point was that there is an, admittedly polemic, abstraction that match all the human tradition: money is a token of debt.

In this view, one important consequence, is that the material of the token is not relevant. The use of precious metals is just an added security measure against counterfeit, but not the thing that make it valuable (that would be the debt that represent).

If this is true, part of the debate about strong money vs. fiat money just become pointless.