Also, are we reading the Penguin version or the original English version?

I'm trying to understand the why burying the silver makes commodities cheap:

Vanderlint, who fancies that the prices of commodities in a country are determined by the quantity of gold and silver to be found in it, asks himself why Indian commodities are so cheap. Answer: Because the Hindus bury their money. From 1602 to 1734, he remarks, they buried 150 millions of pounds sterling of silver, which originally came from America to Europe.

India was exporting Australian gold in exchange for American silver, then burying the silver. Since money was forcibly scarce in India, it discouraged or slowed down exchange of commodities relative to nations that kept lots of Silver in circulation?

So the relative prices appeared low to a European who was used to reckoning the price of goods in Silver. Though to a domestic Indian buyer, the "cheap" price was normal because their wages and cost of living would be similarly low.

So what is a "crisis", exactly? Too much demand for cash?

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=eVRpA-_jzV4 - watch this when you read footnote 5 of Ch.4

I'm still a bit behind, but something I never noticed in Ch3 is how a transaction is a realization in two senses: a commodity realizes its value, but also money realizes its use-value. The former is more often discussed by Marxists so I thought it was interesting for Marx to point out the double-sided nature of it.

Why is it important? Because a monetary crisis could occur in which extant money is unable to realize its own use-value as being immediately exchangeable.

FOWKES: "but increases its magnitude, adds to itself a surplus-value, or is valorized [verwertet sich]*[Along with the concept of surplus-value, the concept of Verwertung is introduced here for the first time. Since there is no extant English word which adequately conveys Marx's meaning, we have adopted throughout the word 'valorization '.]

AVELING: "but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself."

then, just before footnote 6 in Ch.4, where Fowkes has "valorisation", Aveling&Moore have "expansion of value"

FOWKES: There is a contradiction immanent in the function of money as the means of payment. When the payments balance each other, money functions only nominally, as money of account, as a measure of value. But when actual payments have to be made, money does not come onto the scene as a circulating medium, in its merely transient form of an intermediary in the social metabolism, but as the individual incarnation of social labour, the independent presence of exchange-value, the universal commodity

AVELING: The function of money as the means of payment implies a contradiction without a terminus medius. In so far as the payments balance one another, money functions only ideally as money of account, as a measure of value. In so far as actual payments have to be made, money does not serve as a circulating medium, as a mere transient agent in the interchange of products, but as the individual incarnation of social labour, as the independent form of existence of exchange-value, as the universal commodity

This is a hard paragraph. What is Grandpa saying here?

In either C-M-C or M-C-M, the middle letter is used as a tool to acquire the other letter, which is the alpha and omega.

I don't get the meaning of footnote 16 to Ch.5

'When a man is in want of a demand, does Mr Malthus recommend him to pay some other person to take off his goods?' is a question put by an infuriated Ricardian to Malthus, who, like his disciple Parson Chalmers, economically glorifies this class of simple buyers or consumers. See An Inquiry into Those Principles, Respecting the Nature of Demand and the Necessity of Consumption, Lately Advocated by Mr Malthus etc.,

It appears in a section where Marx is saying that profit can't come from selling at a mark-up, but I don't get how it fits in there.

Marx seems to be describing currency/money as a commodity used for exchange, and one that is tied to an actual physical commodity (precious medals commonly). That seems pretty different from the modern day fiat currency. Does that change anything about the cycle of commodities exchanged for money? Or about how commodities circulate in world trade (since there doesn't really seem to be a true universal money as he describes)?