A mark is a mark and a coin is a coin, the difference is very clear. If it is a coin why would the author of Revelation says it's a mark? I am sure he could differentiate that. The author of Revelation might as well said plainly that it is the Coin of the Beast rather than the Mark of the Beast. I wonder how people could etch a coin onto their forehead or their hand. If the mark is a coin or money, then all of us would have sinned as already we have used the mark and we would face untold punishments for having the mark. This was inclusive of the Apostles who would have used money with the head of Caesar inscribed in them (i.e. the 'mark") in their day to day living. Wonder how they would survive without using money?
The question here is whether the Mark of the Beast is literal or figurative. If it is a coin or money as you've said, then I am right, the Mark of the Beast is literal.
Regret Rose, it is difficult for me to accept your explanation... the mark is not coin or money; a mark is nothing but a mark = charagma.