"Money has value only when immanent in circulation (payment or exchanges), but on the other hand seems to be a stable, value-embodying substance only as a transcendent entity, by being withheld from circulation, possessed. Circulation is necessarily communal, whereas possession is generally by the individual. Our thinkers (whether Greek or Indian) vary in the extent to which their cosmisation of money is of circulation (i.e. from a communal perspective) or of value (i.e. from an individual perspective). [We can] describe theses cosmisations in the descending order of their prioritisation of circulation by Herakleitos and ending with the extreme prioritisation of value by Parmenides. But each of the two essences of money (exchanged and possessed value) produces when projected onto the world an unacceptably one-sided account (Herakleitos excludes stable identity, Parmenides excludes motion and multiplicity). This presents an intellectual problem. But in practice money must both have value and the power to circulate: the two aspects interpenetrate. And so we shall see that in fact comisations of ciculation cannot exclude value and cosmisations of value cannot exclude circulation."
Richard Seaford The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (2020) p.322