Gold was a store of value before it was used for currency, right?
Discussion
Store of Value & Medium of Exchange are 2 functions of money. They can't be seperated.
I like the way nostr:nprofile1qqsf9jl9scw0c5snmkylpfhkppzgd7z7dupul6ms5yl52kfcz9jr8wqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdsrwnevq describes SoV as Medium of Exchange over time.
Storing your value in a good means that you want to use that good as a medium of exchange in the future.
The most saleable good becomes money.
If you want to be pedantic, gold would have had to have been used as an MoE first. The person that took the gold in the very first gold trade for some reason valued gold more than the good they traded for it. Gold was such a good MoE over time, that people then searched for & accumulated gold so that they could trade in the future with it (SoV).
nostr:nprofile1qqsfdjrhvhvspvtf7h7a30qeh7tmmrrdzcllg94gn4zuhd72cjxfgvcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep07lkfge is correct about inseparability.
they are formal properties, so UoA belong there too.
This goes back to Aristotle. MoE is the essential property, as that is the thing which brings money into existence.
Without two people exchanging objects, there is no money.
Explained in my upcoming book
Well actshully...
Those are the 3 widely recognised functions of money with the 4th being method of control (hat tip to Antonopoulos).
Properties of money refers to the characteristics that enable a good to achieve those monetary functions. Money should be fungible (interchangeable), durable (long-lasting), portable, divisible & widely accepted.
I’m working with the classical Aristotelian distinction between property and attribute.
properties refering to form
attributes refering to matter
durable scare divisible etc all are material attributes
no matter how you come at it, the functions of money MoE, UoA, and SoV are unseperatable.
so got that
Method of Control, that’s not a formal property of money, it’s an accidental use not an inherent.
ie. btc is money, and u can’t control shit with it.
i can pick up a stone, and bash someone with it, but bashing is not an inherent property of the stone.
A stone has properties, ie it's dense, hard & relatively durable.
A stone can perform many functions, one of those is bashing someone over the head.
If I also use a stone to grind grain or sharpen a knife, it's hardly an accident.
like I said, I’m using classical Aristotelian terminology.
property, function, attributes, powers, accident, necessity: these words once meant something precise, common parlance has blunted the edge of discourse
accident means it could be some other way. not of necessity
like your example, it could grind grain or sharpen a stone, or it could not. what you do with it is an accident, not of necessity.
money can be used to control, or not.
thus, it’s an accident
not in the clumsy meaning of “happened accidentally”
but meaning it is an accidental attribute.
like having brown hair, it’s an attribute of my hair, but it could have been different.
i am 6’ tall, but i could have been 5’11” or 6’1”
in the singular act of human beings exchanging through a medium, money is brought into existence: MoE, SoV, UoA occur necessarily, could not be any other way
if that doesnt make sense to you, i can’t explain it any simpler
🙏
you got that*