it all depends on what the influx of new money is suppose to accomplish
True, Fiat is a wet dream for every person at the top of the ladder, but it doesn’t serve the interest of working citizens anymore, with how things have been going in the last decades.
bitcoin is backed by the rules that enforce it and its utility of circulation and ontop of that its underlying cost of its creation.. after all a bank note or a bank account balance of $10 does not actually cost $10 to create. thus the unit of fiat currency is not in its cost of the token creation. but only in the atleast minimum labour cost of someones work to obtain the cheap paper bank note or bank balance.
What is more important tho, are the properties that define money and not solely by where the backing comes from, something digital can have better monetary properties than something like gold. It might be hard to grasp for some people.
gold did not fail fiat.. fiat failed gold. there was too much fiat promising an allotment of gold. but the fiat creators couldnt honour every promise. the fiat banks just didnt have enough gold in reserves to honour their promises. fiat failed the gold standard.. gold did not fail the fiat standard
The gold standard failed, because systems that require trust and central authorities to work, aren’t immutable, so it will always fails again.
But gold also failed as money for different reasons, if we define money as a system to enable indirect trade, and would even more so in the digital age(there’s already more paper gold than real gold in the world).
The only thing that speaks for gold is that its the most stable store of value in all of humankind. But it lacks so hard in portability and divisibility, that we had to end up with fiat and paper gold.