There's a whole discussion that can be had here about the merits of most fiat currencies. My viewpoint is that the currency is essentially a "stock" note for the country. The same way stocks are a representation of the value a business has. The value of that note goes up and down (relative to other countries) as they prosper or falter financially across their entire economy.

The fact that most currency is compared to the US dollar doesn't and shouldn't imply that USD is stable, instead, when they falter, all other currencies gain value, and when USD prospers, all others fall by an appropriate amount.

There's still some sort of backing on it, something to weigh the confidence in that currency against. It's easier to draw that comparison between stocks because it doesn't take as much creative thought to work out how the numbers change compared to a single fiat currency. However, I would argue that the same principles apply.

From there we could get into the weeds with fiat currencies and national debts and whatnot; the whole global banking industry, but we get pretty far from the main topic of cryptocurrencies pretty significantly, and into the realm of whether money exists and what the concept of money actually is. That discussion would circle back to cryptocurrencies eventually in the fact that they are currencies, the many of the same ways, and in the end we wouldn't really prove anything.

Though, I'd like to point out that this is by far one of the best comments I've seen in reply to my post so far. Not that others lack merit or any reasonable discussion points, or that they are somehow not worthy of further discussion. There is a lot to say about the idea, and I don't think anything I've said thus far is inherently false, nor do I think any of the replies don't have merit, they do; but by far, this is the best discussion point so far. I commend you for your time and effort in furthering the discussion.