Dense textual analysis might appear to lend plausibility to Sgambati’s critique of The Nature of Money [Sgambati 2015]; however, it is replete with misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Given the critique’s complexity, perhaps only the book’s author is able to detect and unravel the extent of the obfuscation. Limitation on space restricts my response to the most fundamental of the myriad errors and confusion, and unfortunately precludes dealing with Sgambati’s alternative analysis of money’s “significance.” The dismissal is uncompromising:“[Ingham] fails to provide a theoretically consistent alternative to mainstream economics and eventually to grasp the actual significance—or ‘specificity’[Ingham 2007]—of money”[Sgambati 2015: 309].(As we shall see, the conflation of “significance” and “specificity” is an underlying source of Sgambati’s confusion.) Given my aims, his further indictment could not be more damning:“[Ingham’s] sociology reproduces an understanding [.] as deficient and contorted as its orthodox counterparts, and equally blameable for a residual ‘economic determinism’”. 1 Despite my methodological relationalism (sic)(I assume that this refers to my sociological analysis of money as being constituted by creditdebt relations denominated in a money of account), I rely on “logical and ‘meta-theoretical’arguments to justify (sic) the nature, origins, and development of money [.] outside social relations [.][in] the