# Tag Info

1

Anything in limited, stable supply Things or materials that cannot [easily] be created and don't easily break down have a reasonably stable value because if everything suddenly became cheaper, everyone would start buying more stuff and vendors would just raise their prices again. If a few people started creating more currency and spending it, it would ...

0

To stick with the D&D theme, how about mithril? The mithril coins could be quite small and light. All the other coin metals have intrinsic values, so your new intermediate coin should too. Sure, your players may start hoarding the new coins in hopes of melting them down into a new piece of armor. That’s okay. Just fiddle around with the coin’s size and ...

0

The OP refers to D&D... and it is obvious to me that the OP is familiar with some version from 3e onwards, since 2e and earlier contained exactly the concept that this question seeks, namely that of a currency of intermediate value between Gold and Silver: Electrum, a natural or artificial alloy of gold and silver. In D&D 2e, an Electrum piece (ep) ...

1

Regulatory Failure: The central government has prohibited or failed to regulate (for whatever political reason) the interplanetary commerce and banking that makes instant payment trustworthy and reliable. So merchants and travelers must carry cash, and cannot use local ATMs. Of course, such severe mismanagement of the economy is likely to result in high ...

4

If your currency were to be made solely from an element that can only be obtained from the civilization's homeworld or home system they could be using physical currency to prevent counterfeiting by other civilizations. Alternatively, a unknown alien civilization may laugh when you pull up your digital wallet and show them a big number because they don't ...

7

Here are a few reasons: Anonymity - anything "on the waves" can be tracked; cash is harder to track, especially if it's something valuable like silver (ie no number on it) Sustainable Value - digital currencies are prone to rapid fluctuations in buying power; a dollar today will buy more than a dollar in the future (inflation). Any non-paper physical ...

2

Maybe as a backup. The internet connections can fail for whatever reasons (in real life we just had an internet failure because an excavator hit an optical fiber cable). Or for illegal reasons. Drug addicts, brothel visitors and contract killers maybe don't want to share their expenses and incomes with banks.

1

Some inspiration... After WW2, people in germany bought 'lucky strike' cigarettes with their silver, because they could trade cigarettes more easily against food. Cigarettes were the best currency at the time, because they were all the same, came in packs, were inflating naturally, people were already adicted and you couldn't produce them yourself.

3

Tin A large tin coin would be more valuable than a small silver coin. Tin is very valuable for making bronze and fairly rare. So it may be too valuable for use in coins. Brass Brass did not really exist in the ancient world but in fantasy world you could have brass, and brass is valuable and makes good coins. Zinc Zinc only shows up late in the medieval ...

4

Traditional Japanese currency was rice. It stores well, it’s uniform size, and it’s directly proportional to the actual wealth: amount of land you hold and the number of people you can sustain. Most farmers grew rice not to eat but to pay taxes. Instead they ate cheaper grains like millet. Eating rice was like eating money. Something for the rich to do. ...

4

So you want a good way to divide a silver coin into small amounts ? divide the coin itself. This idea is not mine, but is an historical exemple : Hacksilver. Currency usually come from a high authority (the state, the church, the banks...), and while it can be made out of valuable metals, the value don't really come from the material itself, but from the ...

5

What currency is and how it is different from other tradeable goods Currency is a form of money. Money in the form of currency is represented by small lightweight standardized and durable pieces having uniform value. The advantage of using money in the form of currency is that the pieces are: Uniform. The uniformity of currency pieces allows for the value ...

6

Salt It is commonly believed the Roman soldiers were paid in salt, although this belief has met some recent challenges. Per the same second link, quoting Marcus Livius in 204 BC, the typical price of a pound of salt is $1 \over 6$ pieces of copper. Through the middle ages, a single piece of copper was equal to roughly a day's wages for most unskilled and ...

1

In medieval times, not all places used minted coins for all transactions. Some still used trade and taxation in kind. This is to say barter and otherwise offering goods and products. So, somebody could go to the market and use grain or livestock to trade for other items, or products of these, such as bread or milk. The same might be acceptable as taxation, ...

1

Pearls In the real world, all but the smallest pearls are fairly expensive. A strand of Akoya ('standard') pearls can cost from USD 300 to more than USD 10,000, while other varieties may be more or less valuable. Obviously, pearls come in different sizes, but if pearls are used as currency, scales can be used to determine value - which needs not be linear ...

1

Glowstones. The problem with gems is that they are not intrinsically useful. But a gem that emitted light would definitely be useful in a world otherwise lit only by fire. Cool, smokeless, permanent light is worth a lot. You could make these gems small, so you would need a fair number of them to equal a candle. But they are durable as well as useful, so ...

2

If you look back at history and to why we started using gold, silver and other valuables as currency, is because they were rare, hard to get and therefore coveted. In general, the reason we use metals instead of gemstones as currency is because we can melt the metals down and cast them into a consistent shape, so we know the value is also consistent. So, ...

11

Modern coins and paper bills are a promise that they can be exchanged for something of value. The fancy material and engraving prevent people from simply creating more of these promises. Ancient coins are items of value themselves. They are stamped to reassure the users that the shape has not been "shaved" and that the material is not diluted. Gold and ...

2

Quite frankly, there's a reason the world moved to fiat currency; I'm going to describe one form this could take, but you're not going to get perfection. A normal precious-metal backed currency would be (at least theoretically) be exchangeable for X amount of gold/silver. This currency can be exchanged for a calorie of food, with the actual food used at the ...

2

Sure. In ancient Rome, the coins were made of a variety of precious metals. https://www.britannica.com/topic/aureus There were official exchange rates between coins of equal size made of different metals. So many silver coins to a gold coin, so many copper to a silver, and so forth. This was subject to many different kinds of debasement and outright ...

6

The most obvious alternative history difference with these two types of lignin-reduced woods would be: It would replace fiberglass. Especially the "nanowood" as insulation, and as a resin-filled shock resistant building material. Since wood can not be poured, extruded, moulded, drawn, blown, welded, or cast, it would have a disadvantage to materials that ...

0

No Major Differences Would Occur Here's the important thing - both nanowood and superwood are not inherently better than other materials for building things. They don't posses any qualities that aren't present in other materials, they just happen to be cheaper to make. And then we have the fact that deforesting is a problem we're currently facing (and ...

5

The most obvious difference between OTL and the "woodpunk" world would be the importance of forestry and the handling of forests. In the 19th and early 20th century, forestry was more akin to strip mining, with enormous lots clearcut and then left to regrow on their own, often with little or no attention paid to the process by the loggers. This was somewhat ...

2

Magic is expensive I have a setting where gold is valuable because it must be consumed to create any magical effect. If creating a ton of iron magically costs significantly more gold than buying and transporting that ton of iron, then no one need to worry about the economic impact: no one could make money off that, so it will never be done at scale. Magic ...

1

Why would they stop being valuable? Metals has intrinsic value, high purity metal used in coinage even more so. but also consider very old coins are worth more now than they were originally, especially if the place that made them no longer exists. A roman coin is worth way more than its intrinsic value. For most of history coins were not standardized, ...

3

The Old Kingdom had developed unparalleled technology for fine detail metalworking. Unfortunately, the technology was lost with the Kingdom, and nothing close has since been developed. This makes their money impossible to duplicate, that is, impossible to forge. Precious metals are at a disadvantage. How confident can people be that that's real gold? Sure, ...

0

Each of the successor states claims to be the rightful heirs of The Old Kingdom. They continue using the currency as part of their claim. Unlike those other pretenders. Except for those oddball trading countries who decide to use the same currency as their trading partners for convenience sake.

3

Magical detection. It's a lot easier to magically notice and confirm that e.g. a piece of gold has been transmuted from something else, than it is to transmute it in the first place. More sophisticated magic can trace with high (or high-ish) confidence who did it, analogous to fingerprint analysis or tracing bullets to guns in our real world. As in the ...

0

The economy isn't as fragile as you think First (although this depends on your setting), Economies are big. For a single magic user to be able to "destabilize" the system would be extremely difficult, no matter how powerful they are and even if they did start cloning coins or whatever, it wouldn't be a big problem. For example, in our modern-day economy, ...

5

Change your economic model In a modern world, you just don't have cash, only card payments are accepted. All fiat money is just numbers in a computer and largely immune to replication in that style. The question is really how you get to electronic fiat currencies when you can't pass through commodity currency along the way. The thing is that you can, but ...

2

If it's that easy to transmutate or conjure up stuff, then that stuff doesn't become currency. In your world, easy gold means no one uses gold for money. Heck, if everything is that easy, you'll likely have to think in terms of a post-scarcity economy (think Star Trek and replicators).

3

Magic IS the Currency The easiest answer to your question, that prevents any sort of counterfeit from ever occurring, is for the currency to be magic itself. This draws parallels to our modern world cryptocurrency, which is generated by using computers and energy to create new currency. The magic could be stored into small 'coin' containers, with the worth ...

9

If you can't beat them, join 'em I know this sounds weird, but you really shouldn't be worried about money. It's the material goods themselves which are problematic. Why would a transmuter care about copying money when its illegal and dangerous when he could just copy things worth money? Let's say you decide that gold makes the coin of the economy, and ...

0

From a simple economic perspective, the laws of supply and demand would work to decrease the cost of weaponry. Since there will be a great demand for monster killing weaponry, suppliers will boost output to service the demand, other suppliers will enter the market and a host of other goods and services related to monster killing will also appear (everything ...

0

First, the obvious caveat to what I'm about to say is that the price needs to be whatever it has to be to keep the game balanced. But from a worldbuilding perspective, the price of anti-monster guns depend on just how frequently monsters attack. I say "anti-monster guns" because guns in general are good for more than just shooting monsters, and so their ...

3

The price of the weaponry would depend on the severity of the most common, or most prevalent, threat. What I mean by this is that if you can take out most threats with a relatively low-powered firearm, the need for more powerful firearms is reduced. There is no need to use a 50.cal sniper to kill a common goblin you could kill just as easily with a 9mm ...

7

So, slightly unhelpful answer: they'll cost enough to keep your game balanced. More practical answer: economies of scale will make things cheaper and easier to come by, though do be aware of tropes like Adam Smith Hates Your Guts or No Hero Discount. As far as killing monsters goes everyone is going to be happier when there are more people available and ...

1

If the technological level allows, they're probably slightly cheaper, but much easier available. Most first world countries have hurdles to stop wide-spread gun control - from blacklisting like the USA to whitelisting like most of Europe. In your world, wide-spread gun ownership will be required because everyone need to be able to defend themselves. ...

2

Money is valuable because money is valuable At one point, the Argen was valuable mostly because the Old Thrones said it was, and used their power and influence to make it so. But people adapted to this reality. Now lots of people have these coins. They don't want them to become worthless, that hurts their economic power (because something that used to be ...

5

There are two obvious mechanisms that can insure your iron coins retain some value Iron does also have intrinsic value of its own / always will : If a 9 inch iron dagger blade weighs 445g & the iron coins weigh one ounce (28 grams) then sixteen of the iron coins are enough to make a blade. So if a new dagger is normally sold for two gold pieces then ...

0

There is a historical example of this. When comminists came to power in 1917 in Russia, they had to continue to mint old "czar" money (actually restarterd - czar was overthrown 6 month earler). The main reason was - foreign affairs. Other countries had everything nominated in czar golden coins and they do not want to change this way (gold is gold). But ...

0

how about because it have historical value in it. like respect or nostalgia for the old kingdom, like the past ruler or the kingdom is very influential for the current kingdom history or tradition etc. thats why they still keep such currency.

3

The coins hold their value because they have intrinsic value, the value of the material they're made out of. Unlike current fiat currencies in our world, that's how currency got its value originally. A coin had the value of the amount of metals that went into its creation. It wasn't until much later that that link was lost, mostly when somewhat less ...

7

The coins of a fiat currency, if designed correctly, will always have an intrinsic value lower than their face value; that is to say, that the value that the nation all agrees the coin is worth should be more than the cost of the materials and labour used in minting the coin in the first place. There is a very simple reason for that; if you put \$2 worth of ...

8

Retiring the old coinage and minting new one takes a lot of effort and a centralized institution with sufficient control over the territory. The Menanids were not very stable and the territory of the old kingdom fractured into dozens of successor states and petty kingdoms splintered away during the chaos of the collapse. Other than barter, using old ...

2

As far as I know, you cannot bomb Wall Street and crash the economy any more than you can destroy the internet by plugging out a computer. Turning Fort Knox into a pile of rubble would also not suddenly make the United States a third world country - the gold would still be federal property, even in its molten, irradiated state. I can think of a few ...

3

It would not have been profitable for the reasons listed--but the valuable part is that people would keep trying. You would have had hundreds of companies trying to do what SpaceX is just now doing--but decades ago. Just the thought of all that gold would have driven people nuts. We'd probably be decades ahead in certain parts of our space program simply ...

3

As other excellent answers said, there is no economic sense to move much material from moon to earth b/c the costs are astronomically high, and most of moon is made from stuff already available on Earth. Even if moon has some kind of unobtanium that is worth shipping to Earth, it will be a tiny fraction of moon's mass, and will probably have no substitute ...

6

Would it have been feasible to profitably transport significant quantities valuable material such as gold from the moon to down to earth with 1960s/1970s technology? If not, would it have become feasible in the subsequent decades? Maybe. Gerard O'Neill (originator of the now-classic cylindrical space habitat design) proposed setting up a mass driver on the ...

4

No it would not have been economic to export gold from the Moon in the 1960’s and 70’s on purely economic grounds. It might have become feasible in later decades but it is very hard to say because the primary reason for going to the Moon was political not economic and the financial risk would be huge. Gold is a very volatile currency and plans to make a ...

Top 50 recent answers are included