The book doesn't yet have a glossary for a quick reference of definitions. So in the example, Bitcoin wouldn't necessarily be a debt currency, in an abstract use of the term. But it would share the characteristics and consequences of temporal and spatial asymmetry with debt-currencies?
BTC issuance is based on the imaginary model of rare metals : easy to issue in the beginning, more difficult to find with time, and with a fixed quantity.
We know for sure that rare metals currencies lead to crisis, take 1929 for example, while having been extracted and used as currencies since 3000+ years. BTC extraction is reduced to 150 years, no surprise it will go through structural crisis due to issuance model (not even considering the energy consumption).
To me, debt currency is _better_ than fixed monetary mass like BTC or gold : at least, _some_ humans can decide to create more money when the new generation needs it.
The problem is that only _some_ humans can decide it. They decide what are the main values for this generation. With libre currency, _all_ members create the currency at the same rate and can decide what is value and what is not.
Entry into the Ğ1 market doesn't involve speculation like most other cryptocurrencies. That way, it's better on my conscience to recommend. A few of the goals is not to create economic crises or worsen wealth gaps; it also does not involve a power race to "mine" new coins. So in a lot of ways, it's an ethical choice.
3. Libre currency is about currency as an invariant unit to express economical value (relative to the user). This implies equal right to monetary creation between membres of the economical zone, now and between generations. Equality is a very fundamental ethica 😀
If this person wants to create their local currency, they should read the relative theory of money: