Okay, just keep in mind that my profile description does say “anarchist in training.” I’m still learning this myself and I definitely do not claim to be an expert on the philosophy. And economic questions are my worst subject, so don’t expect too much.
And, of course, any of my followers can help me out.
In the first question, you’re touching upon the concept of the tragedy of the commons, a theoretical concept and purely a thought experiment with no historical basis in the original work which has been used to denounce collectivization in support of nationalization of privatization of a natural commodity.
As the socialist Allan Engler wrote in his Apostles of Greed, “…
When property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against those who would damage it. Under capitalism, there is no common property. (Public property is a form of private property, property owned by the government as a corporate person.) Capitalism recognises only private property and free-for-all (first come first serve) property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist…” In short, that a decentralized society with no sense of privatization, but collectivization, is a better alternative because collectivization would not allow the destructive free-for-all concept of “protecting natural resources in case if it would be depleted.”
The commons, in reality, were managed by common agreements between those who used them. That the tragedy of the commons essay has been used by governments and capitalists alike to dissuade collectivization of resources, where in reality, collectivization for thousands of years in multiple tribes and societies has been used in order to sustain appropriate resource use instead of privatization which allows for horrid overuse of natural capital.
For your second question, in a gift economy the concept of value only applies really to the value of that item’s necessity at the present moment. Other than that instance of necessary importance, there is no real sense of object value like in any monetary-based system. Gift economies don’t even mandate exchange, rather an object is given to one person or others without any intent of future payment or repayment. Gift economies grow familiarity between people rather than growing any form of profit. It’s like Christmas every day.
On the issue of crypto-currency, well if the community decides (and i mean every member) to have a currency-based system or is willing to try it out, then that’s what they’ll do. Any anarchist-based society is the perfect breeding ground for experimentation in terms of labor, economy, laws, or whatever else–so no two stateless societies would be the same. If the crypto-currency system becomes a problem or develops any capitalist attributes, then the community can decide to abolish this system.
So the answer to all three questions would be: the community decides how to do what they want.
I used this source from the Anarchist FAQ site to answer the first question.