When I say that the origin to money is not that important you lecture me with 'you do not have an adequate understanding of how money emerges'? It's obvious that you are not paying attention to the arguments and only discuss with the straw man in your own head.
You challenged my alleged belief that money can emerge only in one way. So I provided you links to material that explains how money naturally emerges, and then I provided some simple explanations as to a couple of ways you could theoretically create an artificially determined money using the knowledge of how money emerges naturally, one way being through propaganda, and the other through impractical direct physical manipulation of the brains that you want to value your artificial money.
Knowledge of how money emerges is extremely important if you want people to adopt a specific money. Having that knowledge helps you not waste your time on certain things, or make stupid mistakes. And I have a hard time imagining someone that understands how money emerges would say that how it emerges doesn't matter that much when talking about the adoption of a supposed money, so the simplest explanation was that you lack some understanding of the topic.