nothing is of any real value unless there's also some risk of losing it.
If you're looking for a commodity to have trade or exchange value, then it must be tradeable or exchangeable. That's the notion of "inalienable" as used in the US Declaration of Independence: rights which cannot be alienated (separated) from the individual posessing them. Life, liberty, happiness being the three used in that document.
This doesn't mean undeniable, and there might be some value which can be extracted through threats of denial: "your money or your life".
And there are aspects of value which can be exchanged though the good itself doesn't move: title, copyright, and patent rights might be three such of these. If I transer you land title, the land itself doesn't move, but the claim to usefruct from it does.
A hypothetically nontransferable, non-appropriable technical asset is still subject to claims if a superior right or denial of access to that asset may still be claimed.
And in general, a currency which is used to facilitate trade should in general be portable, readily recognisable, divisible, durable, and homogeneous, all attributes William Stanley Jevons proposed in 1875:
(He also claimed money required intrinsic value, which appears to be an error. Rather, intrinsic value exchanges for trust within the financial system.)
I like that. Risk of losing it, and difficulty of recovery of the same or an equal asset.
Life, for example, is extremely valuable. Everyone loses it, but there’s no getting it back. If you lose the apple, you can probably get another relatively easily, unless we’re talking a post-apocalypse situation…
I wonder if there's an argument to be made that nothing is of any real value unless there's also some risk of losing it.
e.g. you drop your apple in a gutter, or someone takes it from you, or it turns out to have a nice fat worm inside it