It is common to think that money, an economic tool that we use every day, has the function of being a barter, a unit of account and a store of value, a definition often attributed to Aristotle, 4 centuries before our era. .
In the surrounding economic environment, it is possible to observe that a wind of innovation is blowing on monetary issues, which the ecosystem of the mentioned cryptocurrencies may have been the initiator of, as the digital currencies in the central banks may be the relay for this type of initiative.
It appears in a marked way in the ecosystem of the mentioned cryptocurrencies that certain currencies, such as Bitcoin, from an economic point of view present a hybrid character of financial assets that mix with the classical functions of money. Bitcoin is today an exchange tool, a store of value and a unit of account in certain depots, and also a volatile financial asset governed by market processes.
The accounting approach VS the real approach
The economic and financial world has been in the habit of approaching the monetary issue in an accounting approach, money is thus perceived as a standard, the unit of account. This is reflected in the ecosystem of digital currencies, by a technological definition of money as ” account based literally translated as “account based”. In the current use that citizens may have of money, with a real or symbolic physical approach, money can also be perceived as a coin or a token, which translates into a technological definition of money as ” token-based literally translated as token-based. In the traditional financial and economic ecosystem, our electronic money is based on an account, which is also the case for Bitcoin to some extent with a public address on which billing units are located. With regard to Ethereum, an Ether’s public address is associated with technological tokens that can be programmed, via the so-called ” smart contracts or smart contracts. This difference in perception of money between an accounting approach of unit of account or physical currency instrument can be perceived as secondary proverb, but has an impact on the related technological choices and the use of currencies, which is then made out of it. in practice. In fact, the physical technological approach based on an Ethereum token has thus enabled the creation of especially the famous artistic NFTs, these works of art or luxury, whose NFT tokens are the digital representation and certification, with a form of physical digitality of tokens .
In order to proceed, money can thus prove that it has a physically and economically active property, a ” active in Shakespeare’s language:
closer to a consumer asset, as was the case in the world of barter by exchanging physical items, a chicken, apples, a kilo of flour, and why not an NFT.
– or a financial asset, as is the case for many top-tier cryptocurrencies.
This physical reality, which arises in the nature and definition of money, thus appears implicitly in the practical ecosystem of digital currencies, money thus becoming a tool for exchange, unit of account, reserve and digital barter, in the form of digital physical assets, sometimes intelligent or financial assets, as a return to the basics.
This porosity, which thus appears between the various economic functions of the monetary tools, presents in practice the use potentials and technological very marked.
Bernard Lietaer, a Belgian economist and academic who was a member of the board of directors of the creation of the ECU, the monetary ancestor of the euro and professor at the University of Berkeley in California until his death in 2019, thus worked for the creation of an institutional monetary ecosystem. wealth of currencies of various kinds and hybrids, a project that modern technologies, including Blockchain, would make possible.
His vision of the nature of money was a complementary approach between Yang coins, symbolically masculine, and Yin coins, with a feminine philosophy.
Synthetically, Yang currencies are national currencies, rare, encouraging competition, creative financial capital used for international trade. Yin currencies are considered complementary, cooperative currencies, issued in sufficient quantity, for the purpose of creating social capital.
New technologies thus make it possible, from a theoretical point of view in the real world, to realize all these monetary visions of a different nature of money, all within a wise and informed institutional framework, but innovative and bold.
In addition, it is possible to create active currencies with quite remarkable economic and human potential by linking the philosophies of complementary currencies with the nature of money, which is step by step expressed as a monetary asset.
An example could be dual currencies. It is sometimes said in certain philosophies of life that “one must give in order to receive”. In the classical economy, the payment / gift of money takes place against an economic or financial asset, according to so-called market rules. It would thus be possible to create a “currency”, a dual monetary asset, whose payment for a good or service is made in a bilateral exchange of a monetary asset or complementary to a monetary asset. Specifically, you go to the pizzeria, you pay at the end of your meal your pizza in euros according to classic methods, you have the opportunity to pay with dedicated institutional cash assets, tokens, good points, for the restaurant service, or to receive some as a pleasant customer. These complementary tokens, for example, were originally distributed in “Air Drop”, or helicopter currency, by the states in coordination with the central banks to individuals and merchants. In this example, the exchange’s duality axis could only be monetized in reference money euros if a certain number of “matches” between good points / tokens received and good points / tokens given could be expressed in a complementary market balance exchanges. The classical economic relationship thus opens up different dimensions in a duality of complementary commercial and economic relations. It goes without saying that the dimension of mutual satisfaction in the commercial relationship can extend to environmental dimensions, to dimensions of perception of quality, to human and social dimensions of any kind. One point of attention would be that the double revenue generation of these dimensions, which has not been monetized so far, would require a fine economic architecture to avoid harmful side effects.
In addition, we can thus understand that dual currencies, open to complementary monetization dimensions of exchanges, along axes such as ESG (Environment, Social, Governance), open up a kind of spectral vision of economic exchange and to exchange spectra of different economic frequencies, it is thus to exchange waves, and energies, according to the physical definition (see, for example, the definitions of the Fourier transforms on Wikipedia for the most curious about these themes). If the new monetary technologies therefore make the economy a game of energy exchange in the long run, it is quite likely.
Through the so-called new technologies, a new perspective on the nature of money is emerging step by step. Will Bitcoin, Ethereum, Hyperledger be digital currencies, a fundamental act of even deeper structural monetary and technological transformations, this is very likely. Are there today monetary technologies designed by design to exchange monetary assets in the strict sense, see wave monetary assets, not “city design”. Thus, programmed money is not, in the narrow sense, programmable money.
During this period, when it is said in various circles of military intelligence and under different flags that the nerve in certain wars is the balance of power between competing monetary zones, existing or under construction, and finding practical reasons to go to war, and so quite easily , it might be fashionable to think of other monetary prospects for people and humanity.
Will our advanced technology specialists like Thales, Dassault, Atos, Wordline in France be able to develop advanced technologies for monetary peace in economic warfare, based on potential changes in the nature of money, among the servants and progress?