I realized during an uber conversation today that average people (and probably many legislators) don't grasp the fine line between an intrinsic cryptocurrency and a token.

I used them interchangeably in early versions of the Gold Token paper until I realized my mistake after seeing the Wyoming StableToken website, their explicit use of "token" instead of "coin" or "currency". I rewrote the next version using "token" but probably should have included this definition, too.

Bitcoin, an intrinsic coin, derives value from its cryptographic uniqueness within a crypto platform. It has no value relationship to the physical world, unless you count "mining energy expended" like the Bitcoin promoters do. But as I see it, that energy is gone.

A token is a symbolic representation of a physical asset, like the deed to a house. My paper started with gold assets but I generalized it for other commodities like oil, cattle, even real estate. The token itself has no value. It can be replaced if lost or stolen and the physical asset remains unless someone takes physical possession during the interim of a token change

I've got quite a bit more to say on this in a future entry.