the challenge is to create a unit of account, platform, framework/protocol and generally acceptable instruments (currency) which combine credit, utility and trust.

are there no systems out there yet like this, even in development or theory?

(i am guessing Ripple.org does not fulfill the criteria)

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

I lost interest in Bitcoin as a phenomenon the first time after the system got hacked. For what other reason would Bitcoin still be interesting than for people making/scheming a profit from them?

(Michel Bauwens - Leading Light of the P2P Foundation)

There is nothing wrong with fiat currencies, which is what all currencies really are, even the value of gold is a convention, as you can't eat gold.

Bitcoin may even said to be based on the "labor value" of the electricity needed to produce it, since if it moves under that bar, mining would stop. The real value of bitcoin is that it is the first globally scaleable, easy to use, socially sovereign currency.

Unlike the local currencies which do not scale (a study showed their average number of users to be 80-120 per currency); on the other hand, Bitcoin is designed to be scarce and thus a hoarding currency. It is perhaps why it is successful, but also makes it a transition currency. Freicoin could be it, but I'm afraid they messed up the introduction phase with their 80% initial tax.

(My response to Michel)
My point is that in order to work as a sustainable currency it must be based upon a claim over future value, not past value.

I see two principal sources of value for acceptable currency: land rentals and energy.

I see the capacity to provide goods and services as being the basis not of currency, but of the framework of trust for credit clearing. Neither currency, nor deposits are required for 'people-based' credit creation, clearing and settlement.

Although a unit of account IS necessary to value exchange transactions, this is not the same thing as the 'asset-based' (Peer to Asset) currencies and people-based' (P2P) credit obligations which may be exchanged by reference to it.

'Hoarding currency' is not currency: it's capital, and it represents only potential currency which requires acceptance from a counter-party in exchange in order to be valuable.

Since Bitcoin does not represent a claim over future value, I don't see it as ever going beyond the existing constituency for whom its value lies in Bitcoin maintaining anonymity and security.

There is very little real value in an arbitrary lump of metal; with a specified shape, composition and surface decoration. Even something like gold is only likely to be melted down and used for something else, if its monetary value is considered to be less than the value of the metal if used for a non coinage purpose.

If the authority which issued the currency is overrun by an enemy, its money will be largely valueless. For example the Confederate dollar only had value after mid 1865 as a curiosity for collectors.

An electronic currency presumably has no value at all if faith in it is lost, since unlike metal or paper currency it cannot be recycled or collected.

However this comes from limited understanding of money as a commodity, and drawing analogies from the bastardised form of money we use today.