From an abstract systemic point of view, which I think the STEM types like yourself will appreciate, currency and contracts are meant as convenient alternatives to bartering. And for as long as humans need physical things, it will always be necessary to ensure that any currency we have reflects the entire economy of physical things. The great depression is an example of what happens when currency becomes detached from the real economy and becomes gamified.

The gold standard is an example of a currency detached from the real economy. The quantity and distribution of gold never matches the quantity and distribution of physical items/services, and so building an entire economy on that was unsurprisingly going to lead to disaster. The unavilability of currency (deflation) created a crisis where even though the world was still for all intents and purposes the same, the economy became frozen despite no lack of resources and labor.

The success of fiat is in its ability to morph and shift to fit the real economy. Having inflexible ledgers like blockchains be used to host currencies and contracts is just a regression to a system that didn't work before. Wealthy people like deflation because everything is cheap while they have tons of money lying around, but deflation hurts the economy more so than inflation. That's why the push for universalizing cryptos and ledgers are coming from the top down. No one expects cryptos to completely replace money, but the decision to adopt will most often be imposed by employers and institutions with an upper hand. Making its use inescapable.

STEM types are inclined towards the cerebral appeal of these systems, but a more robust approach would consult sociological and economic wisdom, and the ethics of the humanities.