lorb wrote:first read about how the current system of currency works
Honestly, that's where this is coming from. Karl Polanyi, "The Great Transformation" (1944), is about the three fake commodities that the market system is built on (labor, land, and money). The Wikipedia articles are a little thin on details, and you really have to read that book to get the point of what he's talking about. He's sometimes described as a socialist, but that isn't really correct. He is critical of both liberal and socialist economic ideas.
Polanyi's argument is that society gets a great benefit from having a market, but the market is also very destructive: if the price of labor drops to zero, the workers starve to death - so an "ideal" market cannot exist at all. If it's profitable to destroy the land, the land will be destroyed. Then the land isn't profitable at all anymore. So, first in the UK in the 19th century, then in Europe, and then everywhere else through colonialism, there was a "double movement": expansion of the market, followed by regulation, the "self-protection of society". So we get to have the products of an industrialized society, but we also need health and safety regulation for simple survival.
What happens to money is almost more interesting than what happens to land and labor. Fixed ("gold standard" = "commodity money") exchange rates cause slight payment imbalances to result in major deflationary crises. This destroys businesses. As long as it was just starving workers and destroyed land, the business owners didn't care that much. But "ideal market" money destroys businesses. It turns out no one really "controls" a market like this - you can only try to limit it through regulation.
That's what fiat currency is. An attempt to regulate an "ideal" gold standard currency market so that it doesn't destroy the businesses that are trying to live off that market.
And neither commodity nor fiat currencies are the final answer here. What matters is how society can get the benefit of efficient industrial production without destroying the means of that production - the people, land, and whatever means they use to exchange/share/trade effort.
And, no I don't think this is beating a dead horse. I believe a "consumable"-based, or self-depreciating, currency is quite possible. Yes, the economy looks different when you do things this way. Maybe better. Worth a think or two.