My best (stupid) guess is weapons. US gov has a ton of weapons. Already sells tons of weapons. Now the prices will always remain stable. Other countries would love to know that 30 million usd would always be able to buy an f15. Other countries declaring war will increase the value of the USD, as buying weapons from us government will decrease amount of money in circulation.
That’s not how backing works…
You can’t back something with a lack of something, that’s just a scheme to reward actions if the actions are performed by others, or nonsensical if they’re performed by you; you know the government’s just going to produce more cheaper and low quality weapons especially for destroying if that’s how the value of the dollar works.
You also need to have two way exchange of the same material - if you give the government 1 dollar they’ll destroy weapons for you, but in that situation you should be able to exchange that one dollar for your thing back, but what do you get? Do they reproduce the weapons? Do you have to destroy your own weapons? What if you don’t have any?
I know that. But if I’m given the chance to change the way it works, why limit myself? Choosing a random commodity is boring and doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
Hence the destruction of weapons created before the edict, minus all weapons created or purchased.
This is just shifting the problem forward to the endgame of a disarmed, de-billionaire’d world. In that world, currency would represent “some positive benefit to humanity,” so maybe you get a portion of a park named after you, or a tree planted in your name.
I know that there are many, many problems with this idea. I am under no delusions that this would work. But the idea is interesting, and thinking about ways that we could incentivize the governments of the world to act in the interest of the world’s people is probably a useful exercise.