Fiat currency is not backed by military power. Note that there exist several countries without militaries, and none of those countries have worthless currencies. And there have existed countries that put significant investment into their military and still wound up with a worthless currency at the end.
The US economy is the world's largest economy in gross value, is the largest or one of the largest trade partners of much of the world, and has very limited policies on capital control or other monetary restrictions. This means that there is going to be more depth on trading pairs via USD and even small currencies than you would likely have with other countries, you would have very little counterparty risk holding USD, and much trade will end up being denominated in USD anyways. So you'd be a bloody fool not to hold USD.
Magically blinking away the US military would not change any of the above consideration one iota.
So let me flip the question around: why do you believe that the US military is essential to its role as a major reserve currency?
> why do you believe that the US military is essential to its role as a major reserve currency?
Because it's the final backstop that compels people to pay taxes, and taxes are essential to that role.
If you refuse to pay taxes, they send a policeman to arrest you. If you evade the policeman's arrest, they send more policemen. If you somehow evade all the policemen, they send the military.
If the US had no armed federal agents, then people wouldn't pay taxes and the government would shrivel up and die, because governments can't survive on zero revenue.
In this way, the US dollar's value is reliant on the threat of physical force - or in a broad sense, a military.
Answer: nothing. No country has been invaded by the US military, or any other military for that matter, after selling, or even attempting to sell, oil in non-USD. Not Russia, not Iran, not Venezuela, not Iraq, not Libya, none of them.
(And I include the last few because there's no evidence they even attempted to sell oil in non-US currencies.)
> No country has been invaded by the US military, or any other military for that matter, after selling, or even attempting to sell, oil in non-USD. Not Russia, not Iran, not Venezuela, not Iraq, not Libya, none of them.
Are you sure about that? Iraq was selling oil for euros and was then invaded in 2003.
> Almost all of Iraq's oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York.
I agree with the point you are making here. I just think that Proof-of-Work is usually a better choice for a cryptocurrency than Proof-of-Stake.
Conventional currencies (notably the US Dollar) are also backed by signifigant military (and thus electrical) power. I would posit that Fiat currencies are nessisary in some sense, but not that they are more efficient to maintain than cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies tend to piggyback on the infrastructure and economy that are built on fiat (e.g. The internet).
We wouldn't have to overthrow mid-east dictators every time they threaten to price oil in Euros -- but obviously this wouldn't help much because we'd still need to maintain superpower status or risk losing the world order.
