Come on man. Your responses make it perfectly clear you aren't listening to what I'm saying at all.

REREAD WHAT I SAID AND LISTEN NEXT TIME.

Listen to understand, not to respond.

Only if you can understand what I'm saying can you respond in a meaningful way. Otherwise it's meaningless to engage.

As just one example, so you can see how you ignored what I was actually saying:

But every one of those criticisms is a criticism of fiat currency, not crypto.

Actually, every one of my criticisms was a criticism of a non-asset based currency. NON-ASSET BASED CURRENCY. HEAR MY WORDS. It has nothing to do with "fiat" except that both are usually (in this context) non-asset based.

Only if you can see what I'm actually saying will your response will be meaningful, otherwise it's nonsense.

One more attempt, because your premise is so profoundly false.

Gold was valuable because people valued gold.

Gold was valuable because people valued it's real qualities. On the easiest example, it is beautiful and rare. Jewelry was desired for the same reasons, and while jewelry could be used in trade, it was never used as a currency (as far as I'm aware). But it does show that "beautiful" and "rare" are BY THEM SELVES desirable qualities. Have you ever looked at gold? The idea that it has no "real qualities" is utter nonsense.

To continue: currently it is used for jewelry because of it's physical properties (luster, lasts forever (doesn't oxidize, degrade from acid/base reactions, complements many colors (clothing), etc.), has incredible thermal properties, is both physically malleable and strong (It used to be used as the best possible mortar e.g. ("City of Gold" wasn't just a meme), filling in both the gaps in large stones at a very useful temperature range (lead was used for similar reasons, but had the nasty "poison" quality), and absorbing energy from earthquakes, etc., etc.)). These ideas that it had no intrinsic qualities are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE STATEMENTS. All arguments that push that IMMEDIATELY FALL APART, and any investigation into it recognizes is ludicrousness immediately. Your premise assumes people will listen to you without using their eyes or their brains.

That doesn't count the fact that there is some substantial evidence that the Egyptians (or pre-Egyptians?) used gold for large scale electrical conduction, making it the best conductor possible in an environment intended to last forever and safely carry a massive EM load (the top of the Pyramid was capped in gold, and it looks like it was a power system of some type, using gold as the best possible conductor). There are other possible technological uses given by "hidden history" (speculative, but more existent than you might think if you look) that are even more "out of this world" (both in effectiveness and literal "out of this world-ness").

Try again. Listen next time.

Then you can respond meaningfully. Otherwise I won't engage again.