Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it

[deisik]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the assumption that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for (or, rather, into) things that can be bought with it...

[1715234038]

1715234038

[1715234038]

1715234038

[1715234038]

1715234038

[1715234038]

1715234038

[Erdogan]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the fact that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for things that can be bought with it...

False again. Money is value, the proof is that some person at some point prefers the money to the thing. This happens every time someone sells something or a service. In a money economy, it in fact happens every time a trade is done, so it is exactly as common as a non-money transfer. A trade is normally a good or service one way, and money the other way.

[deisik]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the fact that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for things that can be bought with it...

False again. Money is value, the proof is that some person at some point prefers the money to the thing. This happens every time someone sells something or a service. In a money economy, it in fact happens every time a trade is done, so it is exactly as common as a non-money transfer. A trade is normally a good or service one way, and money the other way.

This is not a proof (of money having value per se). Though I was hoping that you would address the issue that I raised in my post (since that would be a proof). I mean, the compliance (or lack thereof) between the notion of money having value as such and the law of diminishing marginal utility...

[Erdogan]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the fact that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for things that can be bought with it...

False again. Money is value, the proof is that some person at some point prefers the money to the thing. This happens every time someone sells something or a service. In a money economy, it in fact happens every time a trade is done, so it is exactly as common as a non-money transfer. A trade is normally a good or service one way, and money the other way.

This is not a proof (of money having value per se). Though I was hoping that you would address the issue that I raised in my post (since that would be a proof). I mean, the compliance (or lack thereof) between the notion of money having value as such and the law of diminishing marginal utility...

It is proof. Value is somebody prefering one thing over the other.

We could go on discussing the two types of value again, but this time I wanted to stress that money is value.

[deisik]

This is not a proof (of money having value per se). Though I was hoping that you would address the issue that I raised in my post (since that would be a proof). I mean, the compliance (or lack thereof) between the notion of money having value as such and the law of diminishing marginal utility...

It is proof. Value is somebody prefering one thing over the other.

We could go on discussing the two types of value again, but this time I wanted to stress that money is value.

So you don't want to address the issue of the discrepancy that I pointed out, okay then. Would money have value to you if you could buy with it only things that you don't need (and couldn't barter with) and, consequently, couldn't that you do? I guess that it wouldn't. Therefore it is not money per se that has value but the value of things that you can buy with it, and only through these things that actually satisfy your needs money obtains its value...

And this pretty much explains the apparent contradiction between the law of diminishing marginal utility and money not conforming to it. If you still disagree, then you have to explain this non-conformance somehow

[Erdogan]

This is not a proof (of money having value per se). Though I was hoping that you would address the issue that I raised in my post (since that would be a proof). I mean, the compliance (or lack thereof) between the notion of money having value as such and the law of diminishing marginal utility...

It is proof. Value is somebody prefering one thing over the other.

We could go on discussing the two types of value again, but this time I wanted to stress that money is value.

So you don't want to address the issue of the discrepancy that I pointed out, okay then. Would money have value to you if you could buy with it only things that you don't need (and couldn't barter with) and, consequently, couldn't that you do? I guess that it wouldn't. Therefore it is not money per se that has value but the value of things that you can buy with it, and only through these things that actually satisfy your needs money obtains its value...

And this pretty much explains the apparent contradiction between the law of diminishing marginal utility and money not conforming to it. If you still disagree, then you have to explain this non-conformance somehow

The two types of value is intrinsic value and exchange value. If you really hate the names of those two concepts, you can of course choose other names but if so i can not be bothered to follow the discussion anymore.

The intrinsic value is what you are after when you go to a shop and buy something. You need shoes, they sell shoes, and you go and buy a pair. No magic there.

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

[deisik]

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

[Erdogan]

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

Your words are nonsensical to me.

[deisik]

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

Your words are nonsensical to me.

I remain entirely in the scope of the subjective value theory, and am using its terminology and notions. If you follow it too, then you have to deal with what I say (and not in the way you actually do). If you don't, then, I'm afraid, you have to explain your theory more clearly. I don't get it...

[Erdogan]

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

Your words are nonsensical to me.

I remain entirely in the scope of the subjective value theory, and am using its terminology and notions. If you follow it too, then you have to deal with what I say (and not in the way you actually do). If you don't, then, I'm afraid, you have to explain your theory more clearly. I don't get it...

We don't have to consider why people choose, just that they do choose. By the way, you got the "intrinsic" word wrong, opposite, in fact. The title is "Re: Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it". Money is value, real value, pure value, just like the things you need to survive or just want to have, those with the intrinsic value. So even if the money does not have intrinsic value, it has value, real value, and we are not enslaved by it.

[deisik]

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

Your words are nonsensical to me.

I remain entirely in the scope of the subjective value theory, and am using its terminology and notions. If you follow it too, then you have to deal with what I say (and not in the way you actually do). If you don't, then, I'm afraid, you have to explain your theory more clearly. I don't get it...

We don't have to consider why people choose, just that they do choose. By the way, you got the "intrinsic" word wrong, opposite, in fact. The title is "Re: Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it". Money is value, real value, pure value, just like the things you need to survive or just want to have, those with the intrinsic value. So even if the money does not have intrinsic value, it has value, real value, and we are not enslaved by it.

I said that I don't understand what you mean by money having "real" value. Instead of explaining it clearly, you are trying to hang on me using the word "intrinsic" incorrectly. As you might have noticed, I used it only once, and double quoted it at that. So now you have to explain to me how I got it wrong, it was your claim after all...

And you still didn't confess what economic school regarding value you adhere to (so as to avoid further confusion)

[umair01]

Essentially debt is created on credit,other wise banks/finances wouldn't exist,bearing in mind exports/imports,infrastrcture development,employment wages,passing bills,taxes ,interest rates,rebates..etc are the lifeline of a developing country, there is a fine balance in maintaining currency regulations, so if you were to make everyone poor and the value of money to be infinite,an economy would cease to exist

[Kluge]

This is not a proof (of money having value per se). Though I was hoping that you would address the issue that I raised in my post (since that would be a proof). I mean, the compliance (or lack thereof) between the notion of money having value as such and the law of diminishing marginal utility...

It is proof. Value is somebody prefering one thing over the other.

We could go on discussing the two types of value again, but this time I wanted to stress that money is value.

So you don't want to address the issue of the discrepancy that I pointed out, okay then. Would money have value to you if you could buy with it only things that you don't need (and couldn't barter with) and, consequently, couldn't that you do? I guess that it wouldn't. Therefore it is not money per se that has value but the value of things that you can buy with it, and only through these things that actually satisfy your needs money obtains its value...

And this pretty much explains the apparent contradiction between the law of diminishing marginal utility and money not conforming to it. If you still disagree, then you have to explain this non-conformance somehow

By this interpretation (which I don't disagree with), cash is effectively representative money with the caveat that cash is not guaranteed to be redeemable for any arbitrary amount, instead relying on market functions. Cash itself is worthless, but it represents X units of "anything and everything" (at least within the issuing country, dependent on their legal tender laws, if any!). Since "whatever we want" is basically the most maximally valuable commodity in the Universe, cash is maximally valuable to everyone (unlike, say, camels or silver nuggets), but only while it represents "whatever we want."

The real issue with the traditional definition of representative currency is that it MUST be legal tender for it to be maximally valuable -- I really don't give half a shit about being able to redeem it for a silver nugget because
1) I have no direct use for silver nuggets and don't want the clutter (there's no single item on Earth I want in such quantity that I'd want to be able to spend my net worth on owning... except maybe Tesla Powerwalls - those things are fucking amazing).
2) in the event of some monetary disaster where I'd actually consider redeeming cash for nuggets, I presume the chance of the nuggets actually being there is very low.

Combined, this makes representative currency (by traditional definition) a giant waste of resources. If the best use we can find for gold, silver, rhodium, and whatever is storing them in a warehouse, aliens should kill us all right now. Similarly, using useful items as a medium of exchange is terrible. -So we use relatively useless items. Cash is fantastic with regards to work efficiency because the paper, fabrics, and polymers we use to make fiat in the world has negligible value (not completely the case with all the semi-effective anti-counterfeiting shit built in these days, but the value's still very low). Who really gives a shit if a bank is storing $10,000,000,000 in nominal value using $291.50 in actual material costs (the actual cost of manufacturing the bills) -- I mean, that's pretty cool that we've been able to add what we were using as money back into the productive economy - but it left us open to policy abuse by the issuers, which turned out to be governments (which is probably far better than banks, at least), so I see bitcoin as the final evolution here and putting the final nail in the coffin of using otherwise-useful resources as something to keep in your pocket or a warehouse. "Redeemable" (if you trust the issuer... a LOT) crypto put a bit of a twist on that, but I don't honestly believe it has any place in the mainstream.

[BillyBobZorton]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the fact that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for things that can be bought with it...

False again. Money is value, the proof is that some person at some point prefers the money to the thing. This happens every time someone sells something or a service. In a money economy, it in fact happens every time a trade is done, so it is exactly as common as a non-money transfer. A trade is normally a good or service one way, and money the other way.

Money is value but at a global level... namely, you may think something is absolutely worth shit nothing, but the market dictates that it's worth 1000 (example: some dodgy painting by one of those high cache abstract painters).
So it's not "pure value", it's perceived value, and a lot of the times the markets are trigged anyway, so it's not a pure "global conscience value", it's a rigged one.

[mrhelpful]

Money isnt really a imaginary concept.

If it wasnt for a fiat system in place, what you expect people to barter and be okay with it? The only reason why the system is in place is to avoid the nonsense of bartering, but it just happens that the banks also have the ability to cash out as well since they offered it.

[Erdogan]

Money is pure value.

Yes money is a pure value, but it is for now. So later after bitcoin have affected they surely money will slowly replace by bitcoin then it will affect all world to use this kind of payment. Just wait for that time to booming then all people will be affected where the new era is coming

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the fact that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for things that can be bought with it...

False again. Money is value, the proof is that some person at some point prefers the money to the thing. This happens every time someone sells something or a service. In a money economy, it in fact happens every time a trade is done, so it is exactly as common as a non-money transfer. A trade is normally a good or service one way, and money the other way.

Money is value but at a global level... namely, you may think something is absolutely worth shit nothing, but the market dictates that it's worth 1000 (example: some dodgy painting by one of those high cache abstract painters).
So it's not "pure value", it's perceived value, and a lot of the times the markets are trigged anyway, so it's not a pure "global conscience value", it's a rigged one.

It is pure value, in the sense that you can not point to anything in particular it can do for you directly.

Take all things you can think of, that has value, together, and try to remove the particulars, and extract what the things have in common. You can think of that also as pure value.

[mrhelpful]

Essentially debt is created on credit,other wise banks/finances wouldn't exist,bearing in mind exports/imports,infrastrcture development,employment wages,passing bills,taxes ,interest rates,rebates..etc are the lifeline of a developing country, there is a fine balance in maintaining currency regulations, so if you were to make everyone poor and the value of money to be infinite,an economy would cease to exist

The system is devised SO that you are a debt slave from day one, regardless of whether you're an idiot or not. How many people are able to pay, in full, for their house, car, education, and healthcare? Please tell us (I dont mean specifically you) how you would save(d) for these things with rampant inflation.

In this fucked up system, one could argue that "idiots" actually do better, since they clamor for assets, while "smart" people try to save in a currency not meant for saving.

Everyone has a choice, and the only way to be out of the enslavement is hacking your life.

Either if its eating and making money, social skills these are all your areas that most will never even consider until their late age.

Eating - can be starting with cold press juice, outsource workers for personal stuff, like VA`s, the list goes on.

[Erdogan]

Since value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, value creation becomes:

To make something or do something that someone else is willing to pay for.

Considering this, no youth should be afraid to not being able to support himself/herself in the future.

[johnyj]

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the assumption that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for (or, rather, into) things that can be bought with it...

That's a good question

The diminishing marginal utility still applies to fiat money, but because fiat money have universal acceptance (In fact only domestically), can buy you anything, then the diminishing marginal utility will apply to all the things combined together, thus very difficult to observe for average household. You need much larger amount to see the effect

Imagine that you have 100 trillion dollar, adding another 100 trillion dollar is almost useless to you, because it does not buy you any more things than 100 trillion dollar can do. In fact for 50 trillion dollars you might already run out of the things that you can buy in the whole world (Many things are not for sale), this is the problem that central banks are facing right now

This is similar to: When you are very hungry, the first potato will worth almost the same as the second potato to you, and the third... only after eating 5 potatoes, the extra potato will show the effect of diminishing marginal utility

You have also mentioned that when the money does not grant you more ability to buy, it will have diminishing marginal utility. The fiat money's value is very tightly related to the acceptance

[johnyj]

By this interpretation (which I don't disagree with), cash is effectively representative money with the caveat that cash is not guaranteed to be redeemable for any arbitrary amount, instead relying on market functions. Cash itself is worthless, but it represents X units of "anything and everything" (at least within the issuing country, dependent on their legal tender laws, if any!). Since "whatever we want" is basically the most maximally valuable commodity in the Universe, cash is maximally valuable to everyone (unlike, say, camels or silver nuggets), but only while it represents "whatever we want."

The real issue with the traditional definition of representative currency is that it MUST be legal tender for it to be maximally valuable -- I really don't give half a shit about being able to redeem it for a silver nugget because
1) I have no direct use for silver nuggets and don't want the clutter (there's no single item on Earth I want in such quantity that I'd want to be able to spend my net worth on owning... except maybe Tesla Powerwalls - those things are fucking amazing).
2) in the event of some monetary disaster where I'd actually consider redeeming cash for nuggets, I presume the chance of the nuggets actually being there is very low.

Combined, this makes representative currency (by traditional definition) a giant waste of resources. If the best use we can find for gold, silver, rhodium, and whatever is storing them in a warehouse, aliens should kill us all right now. Similarly, using useful items as a medium of exchange is terrible. -So we use relatively useless items. Cash is fantastic with regards to work efficiency because the paper, fabrics, and polymers we use to make fiat in the world has negligible value (not completely the case with all the semi-effective anti-counterfeiting shit built in these days, but the value's still very low). Who really gives a shit if a bank is storing $10,000,000,000 in nominal value using $291.50 in actual material costs (the actual cost of manufacturing the bills) -- I mean, that's pretty cool that we've been able to add what we were using as money back into the productive economy - but it left us open to policy abuse by the issuers, which turned out to be governments (which is probably far better than banks, at least), so I see bitcoin as the final evolution here and putting the final nail in the coffin of using otherwise-useful resources as something to keep in your pocket or a warehouse. "Redeemable" (if you trust the issuer... a LOT) crypto put a bit of a twist on that, but I don't honestly believe it has any place in the mainstream.

The problem is not about the cost, it is about the arbitraging behavior related to the money. This has already been observed on many alt-coins, especially POS coins

If a money unit cost $291.5 to make, but command a market price at 10 billion dollars, thus become a presentation of value, then what will happen? Everyone will try to produce this money and use its market value to purchase other things, because they can make a quick profit right away. This will raise the competition in money creation and raise its cost, at mean time anyone accepting this money will only be willing to exchange similar value of $291.5, no more

People will be forced to accept a market price of $10B if they are not allowed to produce this money, that's how fiat works today. And that's the reason it is called monopole money: Only banks allowed to make money at a cost of $291.5 and spend it like 10 billion. But for a money that everyone can make like bitcoin, its production cost will always be close to its market value, due to arbitraging