5 ms·

> The actual creation cost of the Goldback is currently around $1,000 per ounce of gold (or 1,000 Goldbacks). We add 10% to the total price for retailers in ord

> The actual creation cost of the Goldback is currently around $1,000 per ounce of gold (or 1,000 Goldbacks). We add 10% to the total price for retailers in order to come up with the minimum exchange rate. You can calculate the exchange yourself with this formula: Spot gold + $1,000 + 10% Spot gold is $1,942, so the fraction of the value of the bill that is gold is 1942/3236 =~ 60%. So 1/10 of your investment goes away immediately, and 1/3 is in a pretty certificate that is not likely to appreciate. These may be good for small transactions after the apocalypse but they aren't a good way to invest in gold or to store value.

dragontamer 6y ago
I'm more convinced that Silver would be a superior coin in the apocalypse. 1 Oz Silver is $35, and drop down to 1/10th oz denominations for $4 per 0.1 oz right now. Like, literally right now, you can buy these everywhere. No complications or certificates. Its just silver. Pretty straight forward. ----------- Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel so much? Gold is used for large transactions. The more common silver and copper coins will be used for smaller transactions. Under knowledge of modern economics (which should remain true after the apocalypse), we'll know to NOT tie the value of gold, silver, and copper together. But we also know gold/silver/copper ratios won't change dramatically.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  A big issue with any precious metal as primary unit of exchange is trust that the coin is what it claims it is. The trust isn’t just a given it’s a continuation of the trust in the minting government to mint good coins and to pursue counterfeiters and the difficulty at the time of making quality coins. Gold is decent for it but not so much now that we can easily gold electroplate a thick layer on to any metal to pass a cursory acid test. Silver has the added downside that it tarnishes easily.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    There are also widely available acid-tests for silver. There are also electrical-conductivity, thermal-conductivity tests (both gold and silver are superior electrical and thermal conductors), and weight / density tests. They all can be defeated one-at-a-time. Gold can have tungsten drilled into it for example (beating acid tests and weight tests), but that won't beat the thermal conductivity test because tungsten won't transfer the heat out as quickly. > Silver has the added downside that it tarnishes easily. And gold doesn't retain its shape. The solution to "tarnishing" issues (or in the case of gold: losing their shape), is to use 90% coins instead of 100% coins. The 10% alloy will be sufficient to reduce tarnishing, add structural stability, or whatever. For example, a 1oz American Gold coin weighs 1.09 Oz.
    - rtkwe 6y ago
      The issue isn't so much the existence of tests as it is the friction the uncertainty introduces to commerce. (Although in a post-collapse situation maintaining those tests does become an issue long term, I used gold tests for years and only barely know what's in them much less how to make the component acids.)

dragontamer 6y ago

I'm more convinced that Silver would be a superior coin in the apocalypse. 1 Oz Silver is $35, and drop down to 1/10th oz denominations for $4 per 0.1 oz right now. Like, literally right now, you can buy these everywhere. No complications or certificates. Its just silver. Pretty straight forward. ----------- Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel so much? Gold is used for large transactions. The more common silver and copper coins will be used for smaller transactions. Under knowledge of modern economics (which should remain true after the apocalypse), we'll know to NOT tie the value of gold, silver, and copper together. But we also know gold/silver/copper ratios won't change dramatically.

rtkwe 6y ago
A big issue with any precious metal as primary unit of exchange is trust that the coin is what it claims it is. The trust isn’t just a given it’s a continuation of the trust in the minting government to mint good coins and to pursue counterfeiters and the difficulty at the time of making quality coins. Gold is decent for it but not so much now that we can easily gold electroplate a thick layer on to any metal to pass a cursory acid test. Silver has the added downside that it tarnishes easily.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  There are also widely available acid-tests for silver. There are also electrical-conductivity, thermal-conductivity tests (both gold and silver are superior electrical and thermal conductors), and weight / density tests. They all can be defeated one-at-a-time. Gold can have tungsten drilled into it for example (beating acid tests and weight tests), but that won't beat the thermal conductivity test because tungsten won't transfer the heat out as quickly. > Silver has the added downside that it tarnishes easily. And gold doesn't retain its shape. The solution to "tarnishing" issues (or in the case of gold: losing their shape), is to use 90% coins instead of 100% coins. The 10% alloy will be sufficient to reduce tarnishing, add structural stability, or whatever. For example, a 1oz American Gold coin weighs 1.09 Oz.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    The issue isn't so much the existence of tests as it is the friction the uncertainty introduces to commerce. (Although in a post-collapse situation maintaining those tests does become an issue long term, I used gold tests for years and only barely know what's in them much less how to make the component acids.)