Hi,
'Natural' is a buzzword. It means what the speaker wants it to mean, except when some evil government unnaturally forces an unnatural definition of 'natural'. Here, in the USA, I get to read 'convervatives' 'prove' that some things are natural and that other things are unnatural, and then get to read 'liberals' 'prove' rather different categories of natural and unnatural that naturally conflict with the 'conservative' categories. (In America, our liberals are not liberal and our conservatives are not conservative, so scare quotes are warranted.)
Governments are every bit as natural as economies. Is an economy based on dollars not natural because some government enforces it? Then a vis economy is also not natural because one party can kill the other party and take their vis, unless some government or 'artificial' society enforce some unnatural laws against killing people and taking their stuff. (I will completely leave aside the discussion regarding the extent to which a government can fully enforce an economy that isn't viable as an economy, and simply mumble Venezuela a few times.)
What, a rule that you have to pay your taxes in dollars is somehow unnatural but a rule that says you cannot use your superior capabilities to take my vis is natural?
What about all the rules involved with a medieval economy, that dictate where you can trade, what you can trade, with whom you can trade, when you can trade, whose markings need to be on the silver you use for trade, what weights and measures you get to use for trade, what you may use to pay for various things and what you may not?
You imply that I understand nothing about economics because I assume that government has a role in certain economic systems, which is to say, any economic system more complex than bartering because my guys with weapons and your guys with weapons don't feel confident enough to just take the other person's stuff.
You also imply that 'natural' economies involve irreplaceable commodities, ignoring economies based on things like beads. And, of course, you speak of 'utilitiarian value' as though some expert (like you!) gets to decide. Since I don't claim to be an expert, I can say that gold has a value because people value it, and "ooh, shiny" is as valid a measure of utility as any.
An economy involving gold only works to the extent that people value gold and are willing to exchange things for it, and exchange gold for things. An economy involving dollars works similarly. As does an economy involving bolivars. As does an economy involving vis. As does an economy involving tractati.
I say 'involved' rather than 'based on' because real economies, insofar as I can tell, are based on more than one commodity. Sure, most people in the modern world tend not to recognize much economic activity beyond exchanges involving their local, official currency, but much, maybe most economic activity even in our world do not involve the local currency. Modern economics, insofar as I can tell, stakes out an expansive purview of what economic activity is, and suggests that all of it is natural.
The OoH, unnatural as it may be, already has a Cow&Calf rule that is generally acknowledged. That is a barrier to counterfeiting tractati, as are the hoplites who will kill you dead for messing with the economy, thereby depriving lots of magi of magic power. Writing a new tractatus takes a season, a real cost, which might be better spent doing other things if you don't write well enough.
By the way, 'those islanders' are Yap Islanders, whose economy was featured in my third grade social studies textbook. And using a non-portable commodity as the basis for currency is not that uncommon. There was a period in the US, for example, where gold was not minted but we were on the gold standard, using paper money backed by a bunch of non-portable gold. Yap Islanders similarly can exchange their stone money without moving it.
'Organic' is also a meaningless buzzword, btw, except when it comes to Organic Chemistry. Oh, and except when some government unnaturally and inorganically defines it.
As for your original objections:
Perishable: Dollar bills are perishable. Cows are perishable. Perishable items have been used as a common medium of economic exchange. Texts are not that perishable if treated well.
Too easily reproduced: Dollars and cows are easily reproduced. The OoH has means to easily detect illicitly reproduced texts.
Too easily faked: Ok, not cows this time. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Plagiarism? The Order can detect this. A text that doesn't really provide Q xp? Rather noticeable.
But no, it's probably still 'a poor way of doing so.' Because, you know, you don't like it. And that's fine.
Anyway,
Ken