As a proposal for unifying monetary theories, consider the concept of the monetary premium. The value of any monetary asset—from clay tablets and precious metal coins to banknotes and bitcoin—is explained by a monetary premium arising from its demand. The monetary premium is simply based on the confidence that someone will exchange this currency in the future for a comparable price.

For any monetary asset, including fiat banknotes with no use value or a gold ingot, it's often the monetary premium that makes up most of its value. If we take a piece of gold, a certain part of its value is explained by its use value, its use in industry, or to make jewelry. However, much of the demand for jewelry is itself driven by gold's monetary properties, as people use it as a store of value. Therefore, a significant portion of jewelry demand can also be considered part of the monetary premium.

Approximately 10% of gold's demand stems from industrial use, In the value of gold, where it is consumed. This constitutes its use value. The vast majority of its remaining value is derived from its monetary use, primarily as a store of value.

Comparing a piece of gold to a gold coin reveals an additional layer of value. The gold coin is stamped by an authority, and the gold contained in the piece also enjoys a demand for use, a demand to be consumed in industry. It also enjoys a monetary premium as a store of value. This added value is an "authority premium". A stamped coin often has greater purchasing power than an equivalent piece of gold because its standardization simplifies exchange—it eliminates the need to weigh and assay the metal for every transaction. The authority's guarantee of purity and weight adds utility, and the cost of production is reflected in its higher price.

It's the same principle for fiat, paper money. Paper money doesn't really have any use value, except perhaps to heat a house, and that happened during the Weimar Republic. So there's no real demand for its use value. On the other hand, there's only a premium for authority.

Fiat currency's value is derived almost entirely from this authority premium. Its monetary premium stems from its status as legal tender, which creates a baseline demand because the authority mandates its use for tax payments. This monetary demand ensures its continued acceptance as a medium of payment, compelling people to acquire it to meet their fiscal obligations.

The monetary premium proposal unifies debt and commodity-money theories by arguing that their value is not fundamentally different. The value of a gold coin does not primarily derive from its "intrinsic" or use value. Rather, like fiat money, its value is predominantly a function of confidence and monetary demand. For example, if gold's industrial use is 10% of its value, accounting for $300 of its $3,000 market price, the remaining $2,700 is the monetary premium. The fact that fiat has zero use value does not change this principle; the mechanism of value attribution is the same. Therefore, the minimal use value of a commodity like gold does not alter the fundamental process of monetary valuation.

On the other hand, it's certain that at the level of emergence, according to Mises' regression theorem, use value can create an initial demand that initiates the process of monetization. With debt-money, however, emergence is an imposition by an authority, so the source and initiation are completely different. Nevertheless, at the level of value, the monetary premium provides a unified explanation for why both fiat money and why commodity-money possess the value we attribute to them. The underlying process is the same: the monetary premium.

In summary, the value of any monetary asset can be explained by its monetary premium—the value derived from its demand as a medium of exchange or store of value—whether in the form of clay tablets, precious metal coins, banknotes, or bitcoin.

The monetary premium is simply based on the confidence that someone will exchange this currency later for a comparable price.