§30. Why These Become Money

Jason St George. "§30. Why These Become Money" in Next‑Gen Store of Value: Privacy, Proofs, Compute. Version v1.0. /v/1.0/read/part-vi/30-why-these-become-money/

§30. Why these become money

It is fashionable to say that money is a shared hallucination. That line flatters our cleverness while excusing our passivity. Hallucinations cannot settle debts across adversarial jurisdictions; hallucinations do not finance supply chains. Money works because it is backed by a machine—sometimes a literal machine of war, sometimes a machine of law, and now verification machines that continuously produce scarce, indispensable utilities. Post-Bretton-Woods, the machine was compliance. The next machine is verification. Cypherpunks did not abolish trust; they automated it. When privacy, proofs, and compute clear across neutral rails, money stops asking for favors and starts paying for facts.

We can now restate the thesis as a conditional:

If a dense digital civilization continues to rely on AI, global networks, and programmable markets, and if states continue to use repression and narrative control rather than explicit default and humility, then capacities that deliver Privacy, Proofs, and Compute cheaply and verifiably will behave like money.

The rest of the document has been the proof sketch: Part II showed that the triad can satisfy the seven SoV criteria; Parts III and IV built a stack that can actually supply it; Part V wired telemetry and governance around the whole thing so neutrality and repression-resilience are falsifiable. What remains here is to connect those pieces back to the original question: why would anyone treat these as a store of value, rather than as another protocol story?

As a store of value

From the SoV lens in §3 and §12, a credible store of value has to:

• be credibly scarce,
• be cheap to verify in public,
• resist censorship and capture,
• have native demand that is not purely narrative,
• and avoid being a duration instrument whose real return can be pinned negative by policy.

Privacy, Proofs, and Compute meet that brief, but in a way very different from gold or Bitcoin:

• Privacy is purchased because some people and institutions must pay without broadcasting their graph: dissidents, NGOs, treasuries under capital controls, enterprises with sensitive payroll and vendor relationships. In a repression-heavy world, privacy is not a luxury good; it is the hull that keeps savings from becoming an option owned by someone else.

• Proofs are purchased because “seeing is believing” has failed. Deepfakes, platform curation, and the liar’s dividend make any unproven artifact suspect. Regulated AI and finance regimes require auditable provenance and computation. In that world, proofs are not a niche; they are the affidavit layer of the digital order.

• Compute is purchased because intelligence is now a first-class input to production. FLOPs for training, inference, and proving are line items in budgets. Once those FLOPs are wrapped in proofs and standardized as canonical workloads, verified compute becomes a commodity that can be priced, hedged, and stored.

In a world that will likely choose stealth default—negative real yields aided by regulation—over explicit default, a durable SoV must be duration-neutral, peg-proof, and paid for by recurring, indispensable utility. Privacy, proofs, and compute meet that brief: issuance that can’t be decreed; revenues that reprice with fiat budgets; verification that stays cheap and public. Bonds can be anesthetized; utility cannot. That is why this stack accrues a store-of-value premium through inflation, not in spite of it.

Operationally, the non-circular invariant is physical VerifyPrice: for each canonical workload, p95 verification time/memory/bandwidth on reference verifier classes (Laptop/Mobile/Server, as defined in §23.0) stays within published SLO bands. Token-quoted VerifyPrice is still reported as a market signal (it tells you how markets price access to verification), but it is not a constitutional target: price is endogenous, while verifier affordability is an engineering property.

VerifyAffordability(W) completes the picture: the fraction of a median user’s transaction fee budget required to verify workload W on a reference verifier. If VerifyAffordability stays low, ordinary actors can still verify—and verification remains public, not priesthood. That is how the asset avoids becoming a synthetic bond with a peggable coupon: you hold it because verification stays cheap and public, and because demand is structural, not because a committee has promised to pay you 3% in nominal terms.

This connects directly to Part V’s constitutional enforcement (§22.5): physical VerifyPrice SLOs are machine-enforced bright lines; violations trigger automatic remediation. The monetary claim is backed by mechanism, not promise.

As stack

Seen from the stack angle, the triad is backed not by a metaphor but by a supply chain:

• Layer 0 keeps machines honest and powered (verifiable hardware, FERs).
• Layer 1 keeps packets flowing under censorship (VerifyReach).
• Layer 2 keeps code moving even when app stores and CDNs are hostile.
• Layer 3 keeps identity accountable without doxxing.
• Layer 4 turns work into proofs with quantified verification asymmetry (VerifyPrice).
• Layer 5 turns proofs into non-custodial settlement (VerifySettle).
• Layer 6 watches all of the above and pushes it back toward neutrality when it drifts.

Triad instruments—Work Credits, ZK Money, AI Money—are just wrappers around claims on this supply chain. When the stack is healthy, those claims are meaningful: they buy real triad capacity under SLOs anyone can check. When the stack drifts, telemetry makes that drift visible: VerifyPrice creeping up; corridors thinning; hardware or prover markets concentrating; update and comms channels degrading. That is the sense in which the triad is “backed” by the stack: not by vibes, but by a visible pipeline of machines, proofs, and flows that either meets its SLOs or demonstrably fails.

As telemetry

The third angle is observability. A lot of the crypto space has treated “don’t trust, verify” as a slogan, not an operational requirement. In this thesis, VerifyPrice, VerifyReach, VerifySettle, and decentralization metrics are the constitution. They are what keep “trustlessness” from decaying into “trust the custodians” in practice.

From the telemetry lens, the triad becomes money only if:

• verification stays cheap and public (VerifyPrice stays within bounds across hardware and jurisdictions),
• reachability stays wide and diverse (VerifyReach remains high under real censorship attempts),
• settlement stays non-custodial and refund-safe (VerifySettle invariants hold across corridors),
• and centralization pressures are detected and countered before they become fait accompli.

The path is not guaranteed. Verification could fail to remain cheap; oligopolies of hardware or prover-routers could re-centralize admission; regulation could pinch the on- and off-ramps such that settlement becomes a maze. But these are engineering and market-structure problems, not theological ones. They can be measured—latencies, failure rates, concentration indices—and designed around with open participation, auditable broker logic, and non-custodial settlement. The antidote to wishful thinking is telemetry.

Trading one base reality for another

At the highest level, what is happening here is eschatological in the strictly technical sense: not “end of the world,” but transition of base reality. We are trading one set of guarantees for another:

• from authority to verification,
• from surveillance defaults to privacy-by-design,
• from work represented (by balance sheets and promises) to work performed and proven.

People sense this before they can articulate it, the way animals feel weather: a tug toward rails that do not ask favors, toward assets that survive time, space, and politics by being useful on contact.

This is how assets earn a store-of-value premium: not by inspiring worship, but by performing work the world repeatedly buys, on rails that anyone can check. Bitcoin taught the lesson with random hashing. The next class of assets will teach it with useful, provable work and the privacy that lets value remain value under pressure.

Tip: hover a heading to reveal its permalink symbol for copying.