There's a bit of a slight of hand in the final sentence. I'd say the intent there is to dismiss things like personal meme coins.

Bitcoin can't "be issued by just anybody", as in arbitrarily at their whim. It can only be issued under very strict constraints, which makes it more like a commodity money.

I actually do think the regression theorem is right (at least for things that persist as money) and that it does show how money *must have* emerged (deduction as opposed to induction), but also that it's very weak because the pre-money value can be literally anything. Nothing about the Regression Theorem says that money had to emerge from something that had been valued for its widespread practical uses.

Undisciplined

In his writings, Ludwig von Mises shows how money became accepted. He began his analysis by noting that today’s demand for money is determined by yesterday’s purchasing power of money. Consequently, for a given supply of money, today’s purchasing power is established in turn. Yesterday’s demand for money, in turn, was fixed by the prior day’s purchasing power of money.

IMO, this sentence reveals how people misunderstand the role of economic modeling.

Von Mises didn't show how money became accepted.  He developed a 

The author then uses this misunderstanding to claim that electronic money can't be money:

The fact that an object must have a preexisting price before it becomes money precludes the possibility that money in a free market could be issued by just anybody.

Seems like an example of taking a particular theory as truth, then just running with it.

history

econ

How Money Acquires Its Value

> In his writings, Ludwig von Mises shows how money became accepted. He began his analysis by noting that today’s demand for money is determined by yesterday’s purchasing power of money. Consequently, for a given supply of money, today’s purchasing power is established in turn. Yesterday’s demand for money, in turn, was fixed by the prior day’s purchasing power of money.

IMO, this sentence reveals how people misunderstand the role of economic modeling.

Von Mises didn't show how money became accepted.  He developed a *model* for how money *might have* become accepted.  Big difference.

The author then uses this misunderstanding to claim that electronic money can't be money:

> The fact that an object must have a preexisting price before it becomes money precludes the possibility that money in a free market could be issued by just anybody.

Seems like an example of taking a particular theory as truth, then just running with it.