I can accept that with the stipulations that it is a very suitable material for currency, not necessarily the most suitable one; and that this is only true at c

I can accept that with the stipulations that it is a very suitable material for currency, not necessarily the most suitable one; and that this is only true at certain early or unsophisticated stages of civilisation. However, even then the unspoken and often ignored requirement is that there is something of real value that the currency can represent. This also ignores fluctuations in the perceived value of gold, which belies its valuation not being tied to its function as currency. Arguing that e.g. mining for gold is a service whose end product is currency, "consumed" by others is circular (but in reality that does not matter.) I suppose it can simply be said that gold is considered to have value by common agreement; but that agreement is not irrevocable unlike some believe.