“In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.”
It might have already been done (but I don’t think it has) but I mean to compare what is energy to money. In regards to energy we have E = MC, which gives an understanding of the relationship between mass and the quantity of energy implied.
Thinking comparably, we see energy as transferable and so we might begin to liken this concept to money, which in regards to emerging crypto-sciences can be seen itself in some regards simply as the transfer of information. In regards to money, it is a special commodity that the vast majority of the markets will accept as stored value (energy), and will readily exchange it for other forms of such stored value (or energy).
Energy from our view is very convertible into many different forms and will readily do so under the right conditions. Money has this ability too, although it might seem fundamentally money is less accepted by the cosmos than energy. Socially, however, money is probably for more universal.
We say energy cannot be created or destroyed, and certainly in some senses money could be destroyed (gold perhaps might be more difficult!). It is interesting to think about what happens to the capital market value of such a currency when unit of it are deemed to be no longer existing forever. (It might be relevant to think of the speed at which this change occurs as well)
We can think about different types of encumbrances when it comes to money which could be of the shell, or coinage form, or paper, or electronic form, that certainly aren’t as efficient when it comes to the transfer of stored energy. If we think of gold bars or perhaps shell’s as being “fairly encumbered” vs. a digital money, that seems to involve far less cost and time to transact with, we might be able to think of a “more encumbered” money or a “less encumbered” money. Money then, in an asymptotically less encumbered form limits to becoming a pure energy (although it’s quite more complex than this).
If we continue this analogue (if it is still analogue at all), then we can understand the different use or character of a commodity or money in relation to a market that wholly or partly accepts the specific medium of exchange (or doesn’t at all). A market that fully accepts a commodity necessarily levates that commodity to being a money, where a commodity that is not readily revived by any party could hardly be said to be useful at all in regards to a money. This is of course quite a social use of stored energy in the human society sense.
If we could somehow convince the universe such as the gods of gravity or the sun or another planet or a comet to accept our currency then we might further liken it to that of a pure form transformable energy. And so if we can make room for the possibility of a type money that is more and more accepted by not only the different humans on the planet, or the technology they make, or possibly other types of intelligent life around the universe, or even just simply life, we might see the argument that ideal money is simply a form of socially manufactured energy itself in the truest sense of the word.