Gold is a metal, not a currency. Using it as a currency inflates its value, which is a net harm because gold is a really good electrical conductor, so its most efficient use value is demonstrably in the form of electronics. Converting it into exchange trinkets is a total waste of time and energy. Resetting the world to the time when gold was used as an exchange trinket, to track the value of other (possibly less-useful) things, is a horrible idea. Currency with broad public oversight that strictly follows Real Bills Doctrine beats metal value tracking any day.

If we have any current world-currency, I would argue it’s the international electronic currency/market exchange system itself. Different services have different exchange rates and fees, but if you took an average or mean of current exchange rates, you can basically figure out the worth of any one currency via the mean of all currencies it can be converted to, and examples of products and services that it can be “converted” to, at any point in time. This would include conversion to hard goods, like gold, which have conversion values that vary wildly over time. With enough exchange information access, you could automate the calculation, including cross-checks and failsafe calculations. With some exchange markets, you can even pin down value to the second, though expanding the stability time frame would make it more manageable.

You could make up an imaginary currency based on broad averages in these exchange markets — let’s call it “Mean World Currency” or MWC for short. The only thing keeping it from becoming a real currency is whether one or more exchangers will take it in exchange for another currency, or some asset with equal value. They would have to agree to only “create” more MWC when given another currency or asset of equal current value, and to “destroy” it when converted back to another currency or asset.

Let’s just say all the currency exchangers agreed on some central MWC calculation standard, and agreed to exchange equal MWC amongst themselves freely. A central MWC authority would help arbitrate exchange disagreements, but for the most part MWC standardized exchanges happen naturally without much disruption. Then you could go to any exchange service, convert your local money into MWC for a small fee, and go to any other exchange, and get another locality’s currency out for their current MWC exchange rate.

Going further, let’s say that the MWC authority decided to allow exchange via printed bills, as well as electronically. Electronic exchange of MWC could happen just like money is “wired” between banks and credit payment services now. Bills could be printed cryptographically with a face MWC value, and a hidden MWC exchange key. That bill’s face value could be exchanged to electronic MWC currency, to a bill holder’s designated account, at bill key-reveal time. The bill would be destroyed/recycled from there. In between printing and key-reveal, anyone with certified bill-inspection equipment could confirm that the bill value matches face value, and the bill key-guard hasn’t been tampered with, and thus exchange it as paper currency. In the era of online banking, the bill-inspection equipment could be almost any trusted computer/smart-device with a camera or other key-guard inspection device. Destruction errors wouldn’t be a big issue, as the bills would cease to exist from the exchange database as soon as they are converted at key-reveal time, so really they are “destroyed” more in an electronic/database sense than a physical one. Copies would be worthless, as the key would be hidden behind the key-guard, and made impossible to copy until conversion time. Premature key-guard tampering would constitute destruction without transfer, but the full value would revert to originating account. This would prevent the same value loss from the system that occurs when treasury documents are destroyed before exchange.

This model doesn’t have to be used at a world-wide level. This same model could be used for a national currency exchange with smaller locality currencies. I think currency stability would increase by greater exchange aggregation level, but I’m sure there’s some economist who could prove that better than I can. The main point is that you could have both locality and wider currency exchange systems coexisting. The biggest sticking point is consumer confidence in any given currency or exchange system. The U.S. Dollar is losing mine, and a metal standard wouldn’t change that at all. You can’t survive by eating metal, and the best foods rot too fast to maintain stable valuation. A *stable currency* is better than either for market exchange, no matter if it’s made of electrons or paper. Anything else is just reversion to barter.