In this article it is argued that crypto-currencies do pass a different (wider) interpretation of the Regression Theorem. I think it’s interesting that SafeCoin (and incidentally Ether) may also pass the narrower interpretation that can be used to attack a crypto-currency’s status of money.
I wonder, can SafeCoin’s utility in the SAFE network be viewed as antecedental value or should it merely be viewed as a credit mechanism for using/providing digital storage, which is a function of money?
“Objective-exchange values of all other goods and services are explained by the subjective theory of value, whereby the values are traced to the ultimate subjective use values of the marginal consumers who value such goods and services for their objective-use values which they expect to consume. This is not true for money because (1) money is not consumed in its use and (2) the subjective and objective use values of money coincide and are equal to its objective-exchange value, the estimated value of the goods and services for which it can be exchanged.”
To add to the confusion, argument (1) in the quoted text is not true for SafeCoin, since SafeCoin is (at least temporarily) consumed by the network when it is used to PUT data. However, another way to look at it is to view the SAFE network as a special kind of third party, which is the owner of all absorbed/un-issued SafeCoin, in which case you could argue SafeCoin is never consumed.