Image Source

That of hard currencies has been a financial euphemism. In this matter, England has been the standard-bearer; it has always been worth more than the arrogant US dollar and maintains strong imperial reserves on the EURO.

From the outset, the cryptocurrencies that have preceded the PETRO (PTR) are capitalist in nature, regardless of the degree of business seriousness and good intentions that accompany their managers, all suffer from the same evils or risks of all bourgeois companies governed in block by the inelastic market, except for the tendentious cases of monopoly where a single company imposes its interests on the rest of its competitors.

However, apart from that variety of digital currencies as the best way to account money whose books and patrimonial movements are in certain web addresses, PETRO recently emerged, a sui generis currency that has a lot of digital currency, as use value , but whose exchange value is referred to and supported by concrete and well landed goods such as oil, gold, diamond, etc.

Yes, Petro is a commodity whose exchange value is measured in dollars, for example, and has barrels of oil as support or use value.

The other criticisms have as exchange value a certain number of dollars that are already fiduciary currencies per se, and as use value serve as money without any support, that is, a fiduciary or digital use value, which serves as support for a value of exchange represented in notes also fiduciaries.

Let's say that cryptocurrencies as capitalist money are bifiduciary, while Petro is monofiduciary. Such is the radical difference between Petro and the other cryptocurrencies.