agentbluescreen,
I have struggled mightily through several of your posts, both here and elsewhere on this site, and I humbly request that you drop down your 165 IQ a few notches for us mere mortals. Your poetic prose seriously obscures your (presumably) intended topics of discourse, namely, "pyramid schemes", "slavery", "equivalence of labor and value", "securitization", "stability of the value of money", "speculation", and on and on.
Maybe you could provide a "TL;DR" for each of your posts. It would be really helpful.
The problem I have is that you are right about many things, but wrong about others, and you mix them all together and then salt them with such arcane and charming phrases as "The Bilderberg Gold Pharaohs of Liechtenstein", "National Economic Labour-Exchange Currency Token", "BTC-securitized Future Derivative Contract", and "private Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite Menshevik gang of wealthy boardroom(or stock market)-socialist Pharaohs". It's just damned hard to sort it all out and respond to any of it. But I'll try. First, what I agree with (I will try to dumb this down to 140 IQ levels):
1. Yes. Many commodities were experimented with as money over the centuries. What's your point again? They all became pyramid schemes? No.
2. Yes. Bitcoin is just a speculative oddity at the moment. It won't be money until it is relatively stable.
3. Fiat currency is bad. Duh. It allows some of us to eventually own everything (when enforced by the state). I hope we have the same definition of "fiat".
Now, my disagreements:
1. Gold was never a tool of the elites. It evolved as money slowly (and widely), thus making it very egalitarian. There is nothing wrong (and everything right) about a "physically" limited (but widely dispersed) money supply. In fact, the elites hated gold because it was honest and widely used money (society didn't need the state). They only enslave us when they "take away" (physically, psychologically, or legally) our ability to use it as money. They do this by forcing us to use their fiat money instead. The real enemy is our belief in political authority (but that is a very big and separate topic).
2. You make the same mistake that Marx made in his "Labor Theory of Value" by assuming some inherent relationship between labor and the value of money. The labor of one person or the labor of a nation cannot give money any inherent value. The value of money is completely subjective (just as is the value of anything). You may value $1000 a lot or a little. It all depends. It's the relative rank of your valuation of $1000 that matters. I once paid three or four of guys $400 to shovel two feet of snow off of my roof. At that moment I valued their 45 minutes of labor more than I valued my $400. That same group of guys River Dancing for my entertainment for 45 minutes would be worthless to me. Each is 45 minute of labor, but very different values (to me). All value is subjective. The only thing that "stabilizes" the economic value of anything is the historical record of what other people pay for things. When you want to buy or sell some used item on Ebay or though the local paper, you look to see what others are paying. But every transaction is independent and subjective. The stabilized value is a constantly changing historical aggregate. I agree that the "price" of money should not change much. But that is a consequence of its ever-widening use as money (as opposed to a speculated commodity) and millions of independent, voluntary, free-market transactions, and not some decreed system of fees to dampen speculation. Speculation will either level out over time or it won't. There is nothing we can (or should) do to control it.
3. You use "security" incorrectly. Security for a loan or contract is collateral not something that "guarantees and certifies provenance and unforgeability".
I discuss Bitcoin's and gold's money properties elsewhere, so I won't repeat myself here. I will just summarize by saying that gold was money once, but is unlikely to be so again. Bitcoin is not money now, and is unlikely to be so in the future. One major difference between them is that gold was "always there", whereas Bitcoin just popped into existence. This explains why gold was never a speculated commodity (while it was money), and why Bitcoin IS currently a speculated commodity. The only way for either of them to become money (again in the case of gold), is for fiat currencies (and states) to "get out of the way". That will require the dissolution of state power (and a major paradigm shift about the imaginary nature of political power) around the world. Maybe someday, but probably not in my lifetime.