The argument for why a medium of exchange (a currency) needs to be transportable and relatively nondestructible goes all the way back to Aristotle, in the West.

The argument for why a medium of exchange (a currency) needs to be transportable and relatively nondestructible goes all the way back to Aristotle, in the West. (Similar arguments about silver surely must have appeared in Chinese culture, long ago.) I'm sorry not to follow my usual practice of providing references here, but I guess I think it is drop-dead obvious that not all features that give something value necessarily make that thing a convenient medium of exchange for trade. The particular argument in the article kindly submitted here (well worth a read, even if you have read all the comments here) takes a good look at the properties of gold as contrasted with other chemical elements, and points out what features gold (and silver) have that most other elements do not share.