Indeed, the exchange of a product against a sum of money establishes their strict identity in value terms. Within every transaction, supply and demand become necessarily the two sides of the same coin. As a matter of fact, supply and demand become completely interchangeable. They are the two aspects of the same phenomenon: a sum of money units is supplied by the buyer and demanded by the seller, and a product is supplied by the seller and demanded by the buyer.

But now, we have a grave problem: Just before, you stated that money – being a valueless "veil" – acquires its value only once exchange has taken place. Next, you said that the exchange of money on the one hand and the product on the other establishes their equality in terms of value. But if money is a veil, why should anyone accept it as a means of payment? If it is introduced as a completely valueless numerical thing, why should anyone be willing to exchange it against valuable goods in the first place? The impossibility of introducing money as a valueless veil is now obvious; no transaction would ever take place. Therefore, please go back to the last question.