&quot;it matches with humanity&#x27;s tradition too&quot;<p>I suppose you mean with the traditional way money is explained, that is very probably wrong.<p>The idea that first was barter and then people started to use precious metals doesn&#x27;t match the historical evidence.<p>There is strong evidence that money is invented in the first states in parallel with writing and numbers in order to register debts. (see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sumer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sumer</a> :
&quot;Several centuries after the invention of cuneiform, the use of writing expanded beyond debt&#x2F;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.&quot;)<p>Metals (strong money) are not necessary and if fact was not the most used system for most part of the history (see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tally_stick#Split_tally_in_England" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tally_stick#Split_tally_in_Eng...</a> )<p>So, the gold thing doesn&#x27;t match humanity&#x27;s tradition until very recently. This is controversial, I think, because it has political implications.