@celia I’m an anti-bitcoin-because-environment-but-also-it’s-a-terrible-currency person, so I hope that qualifies. :-) The future of money will look mostly like the past and present of money, and that’s fine. Bitcoin, at best, solves a super-niche problem at tremendous cost.
@g @celia what do you mean when you say that there is a recent myth that the central bank should be independent? In the US, the independence of the fed from the (political) treasury was established over 100 years ago. Are you suggesting that central banking should be politicized?
It has been tried. It's not great.
Independence of the central bank doesn't mean that it's not part of the government. Central banks are (with few exceptions) part of the government.
Independence usually just means that the legislature can't vote to print money or lower the interest rate for (short term) political convenience. Such actions have to be judged to be in the public's long term interest by a council of appointed experts.
@celia Currencies that are only valid into local communities (scale of a city or a region) and that you can only use for local services like local shops, local freelancers, local tourisme…
To get this currency, you either buy it with another currency, either receive it as a trade for your service.
I’m not a specialist at all, so Wikipedia is probably a good entry gate for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
@meduz @celia My country is keen on LETSing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system.
Since the optimal size of a community is 150 members (Dunbar's number), LETSing is a great fit; it encourages cohesion.
My own guess for the future of money would be the system we have now, but where financial criminals actually go to jail instead of paying fines which means nothing to them.
@celia bitcoin already is the future of a monetary system. Other parts might simply be implemented on top. is it possible somebody comes up with something better? It just hasn't happened yet.
@celia digital currency that can be exchanged for physical currency has been around for a while. The only benefit of crypto currency is decentralization.
Yet currency has immense gains from centralization. Without it, you can't provide stimulus or prevent fraud.
Technological advancement isn't about replacing established systems with new ones. It's about making things better.
@celia So, in its entire history, bitcoin has peaked at not even 500k transactions per daya. Even if that was sustained (which it wasn't) then it would be at 140 million transactions per year. The federal reserve reports 15,584 million transactions per year for 2019[b] (and that's only clearinghouse transactions, the real number is likely far higher). So, bitcoin has <0.8% of the yearly transactions that the global banking system has.
Now, bitcoin uses 77.78TWhc of energy yearly as a conservative, years-outdated estimate. The global banking system uses an estimated 100TWhd of power yearly. So, for well under 1% of the transactions bitcoin uses 78% (more like 121%e) of the energy the banking system uses. Is that really efficient in the slightest?
@celia, I think Stellar has a good shot. It’s idea is that you can create tokens that represent something, like dollar, stock shares, or even beers. These different token types can be exchanged, but the trick is that it can happen automatically, and not necessarily directly. There is a native token called Lumens that pay for the (very low) transaction fees, and can also function as an exchange medium if needed.
@celia, of course anyone can create tokens, so there is an issue of trust. But Stellar built that in: you decide whose tokens you accept and it’s prudent to only accept national currencies from legit banks. But you don’t care what other people accept as payment, you can just send funds to them.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.