The Khan’s currency united all the stories about money because the Khan wielded all the coercive power. But the reverse is also true: He wielded all the coercive power because he united all the stories about money. Today, when we try to conjure one money to rule them all, we are implicitly seeking to concentrate coercive power in whomever holds that money. Yes, this is a critique of Bitcoin, but don’t fail to notice that it’s also a critique of “universal” basic income. I fervently wish to guarantee everyone a baseline of dignity, but there’s no telling what will be lost, or where power will end up concentrated, if a monetary baseline establishes a universal unit of account whose governance is not seriously accountable. “Local” or “community” basic income seem less dangerous.
Related posts
-
Crypto Exchange Archax Adds Tokenized Money Market Funds From State Street (STT), Fidelity and LGIM (LGEN)
“Tokenized real-world assets, and in particular funds, are really gaining momentum,” said Graham Rodford, CEO and... -
How Tokenized Money Market Funds Dulled the Stablecoin Star
Regulatory uncertainty around yield-bearing stablecoins has allowed regulated tokenized yield-bearing instruments like money market funds to... -
Franklin Templeton Expands $410M Money Market Fund to Ethereum (ETH) Blockchain
Asset manager Grayscale, in a report in April, argued that Ethereum is “meaningfully decentralized and credibly...