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 explanation, too.

Bitcoin, an intrinsic coin, derives value from its cryptographic uniqueness within a crypto platform. It has no relationship within 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 digital representation of an underlying asset, like the deed to a house. My paper started with gold assets but I generalized it for other commodities like oil, cattle, real estate or even as a facade for bitcoin. The token itself has no value. It can be replaced if lost or stolen and the underlying asset remains unless someone takes possession during the interim of a token change.

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