I see your point, you're tying "fiat" to the act of spontaneous creation at will rather than the lack of a backing commodity, but I don't agree that definition, and even if I did I'm not sure it's as cast-iron a distinction as you're implying.
You absolutely do have to worry about price manipulation... the only difference is that it's not specifically governments it's just the disproportionately wealthy. I don't see that as a worthwhile distinction.
Similarly you can destroy cryptocurrency (some at least), and it can be created. The fact that the creation rate is constrained by the prudence of an algorithm designer rather than constrained by the prudence of a central banker seems like another arbitrary distinction.
To me it feels like crypto proponents want a fancy economics term for othering conventional currencies, so the definition is being bent to fit.
You absolutely do have to worry about price manipulation... the only difference is that it's not specifically governments it's just the disproportionately wealthy. I don't see that as a worthwhile distinction.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/12/14/how-bots-are-manipulating...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-06/mysterious-trader-...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/single-trader-with-enormous-b...
Similarly you can destroy cryptocurrency (some at least), and it can be created. The fact that the creation rate is constrained by the prudence of an algorithm designer rather than constrained by the prudence of a central banker seems like another arbitrary distinction.
To me it feels like crypto proponents want a fancy economics term for othering conventional currencies, so the definition is being bent to fit.