[JumpCrisscross]

Companies do have "currencies" that can hold value independent of FX - secured bonds. Otherwise, commodities take the role of liquid non-fiat value holders. Substituting a government-backed currency with a corporate-backed one is a terrible idea given that a corporate is subjugated to a sovereign (and pays its debt in sovereign currency [ignoring the marginal role in-kind bond payments play]). Thus, one is accepting an inherently inferior proposition.

It should be noted, though, that many multinationals' bonds trade healthier than many sovereigns' currencies.

[justincormack]

Er, bonds are denominated in currencies. There is no independent value.

[JumpCrisscross]

One can just as easily say that currencies are denominated in assets. When valuing a currency one inevitably resorts to trade flow and capital production statistics. A better way to think of these flows is as swaps instead of "buying" things with money.

In the modern banking system Treasury bonds function just as much as money as Federal Reserve notes (which are technically a debt). Before the crisis AAA corporate bonds were accepted as collateral nearly on par with Treasury bonds.

[jandrewrogers]

The above is why this only applies to truly global multinationals that have their assets liberally distributed around the world. The risk exposure of a single government going rogue is mitigated by any particular government only having access to a fraction of the assets. If several governments go rogue at once then you have bigger problems to worry about.

[JumpCrisscross]

True - I just assumed multinationals given that the discussion is on sponsoring units of account to compete with sovereign currencies. I should have been clearer about that.