Fiat currency and fiat money is based on credit and creditors.
mentions:
“Fiat currency is legal tender whose value is backed by the government that issued it.”
However, the value changes and is not fixed. It is a relation of values compared to other values which changes, and comparison of those changes in times and other financial factors.
Just as indictment is an attack from a court against a party to discredit them, the fiat money is a credit.
writes:
What is ‘Fiat Money’
Fiat money is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on the faith and credit of the economy.
“Its just to make it stable so people would not resort to more shady transactions where government cant control it, it needs taxes to then give the money to those who need it (or those who dont). 
”
Government decide who they want to be friends with and who they want to be at war with and against.
They control this, and they can refuse to transact with money from other parties, or default on their promises or obligations to them.
Many transactions are based on false fears created and backed by parties who know those fears are created to make money.
The Y2K bug was a good example.
“Crypto does have some effect on wellbeeing of individuals, there are morally questionable things going on with it.”
Most of the government money is not printed anymore.
Most of it is in bank accounts and in credit and will never see the light.
It is encrypted and controlled by systems who communicate and control the securities they pay themselves to protect it.
They make patents to protect the patents they made to make money with.
The same system end up in problem when the security they are based on fail, because it is not protected enough compared to the risk and inequalities it poses.
They prefer to pay parties who already made money with it to “fix” the problem, while parties who may have more real needs and ability to use the funds better are not given enough for their own health needs.
