"Precious" metals vs. currency dichotomy is a conceptual trap that further distracts the hoi polloi from recognizing the reality of their prison. Whether our masters use metals, wood chips, ink on paper, digital designation, or blockchain ledger are all irrelevant to the central concept that all of creation are ledgerized by our masters into abstractions that are granted as privileges of "propety." How does the concept of "propery" arise, with what legitimacy does man claim "rights" to property, and by what means does man enforce "his" rights?
Marco Polo in his naivete once remarked with wonder the Mongol economy operating on paper currecy, rather than on bullion. Like Marco Polo, most Western minds do not think back to the Lydian "revolution" of gold alloy coins. Midas, or whoever it was, traded readily obtained yellow metal alloys, worthless for any practical uses, for necessary commodities for his state. He infused value into his yellow coins through legal/royal decree of accepting tax payment only in the new yellow coins. The value of currency is dictated by those who hold power; the European fascination with precious metals may derive from inefficient centralized bureaucracy and central authority over its imperial domain. The mercenary killers of these domains preferred gold alloy coins as payment, which in turn became the currency medium of international transactions, while silver and copper were used for domestic economic activities.
The Ming, then Qing, dynasts transitioned their currency from copper/bronze to silver because of the ready availability of silver from the Habsburg silver mines in South America. Currency is but a placeholder of value that man assigns to commodity. In order to assign arbitrary value to creation, man must first arrogate ownership of the said piece of creation. Establishment of ownership centers on violence and force, usually of the state, but also of tribal/family units. Money is but a legal abstraction of the underlying violence inherent in human societies that fictionally legitimizes ownership of a piece of creation. As long as man owns creation, he will need money, and with money comes masters.
I agree that there exist certain difficulties with how humanity deals with the concept of ownership in its various permutations. The concept itself however appears almost unavoidable if one wishes to assert or accept the concept of individual rights, a core principle of which necessitates the concept of self-ownership.
Self-ownership does not appear to necessitate violence to instantiate, but unfortunately it does all too often appear necessary to preserve it. I suspect that some degree of your statement that "establishment of ownership centers on violence and force" is a consequence of some people wanting to own others and the products of the labor rather than barter for it with something they themselves had to work for.
In that respect perhaps currency can be seen as problematic for its ability to serve as a placeholder for subjectively determined value in that enables a rather broader pillaging of the unwilling. Now the coercive collectivists can simply demand dollar or gold or whatever rather than be limited to accepting whatever it is that an individual would otherwise have to offer. Very interesting line of thought, Soo!