Blockchain Papers

Katrin Becker

peer reviewed

Simon Butler

Money has been a polarising and unresolved socio-economic issue for more than 300 years. In this article, we explore how the state became increasingly involved in money and, through the words of prominent monetary theorists, identify the problem of the state in money. We analyse Bitcoin to see if it is a solution to this problem but move on to contend that the political dimension needs to be the focus of theory in the 21st century and that control of the supply of money, and the power that it gives, is the root of contention.

Siwittra Chainiyom, John Giordano

Georg Simmel in his book Philosophy of Money, described how money evolves through history and predicted that it will evolve to the point where it no longer relies on any substance. He called this stage “perfect money,” which he described as “money detached from every substantial value”. Today we are faced with the development of cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin is the best known. Bitcoin presents a new system of transaction which does not require governments or middlemen to regulate trade. Since such currencies are completely beyond substantial value, the philosophical question emerges whether Bitcoin is “perfect money.” This essay will argue that Bitcoin can be understood in connection with Simmel’s idea of “perfect money.” But will also consider Simmel’s claim that perfect money is only possible in a stable society and will show the limitations of cyrptocurrencies and Bitcoin in light of this.

Joel Z. Garrod

Although it is still in early stages, many commentators have been quick to note the revolutionary potential of next-generation or Bitcoin 2.0 technology. While some have expressed fear that the widespread application of these technologies may engender the rise of a Terminator-style Skynet, others believe that it represents the coming of a decentralized autonomous society (DAS) in which humans are freed from centralized forms of power through the proliferation of distributed autonomous organizations or DAOs. Influenced by neoliberal theory that stresses privatization, open markets, and deregulation, Bitcoin 2.0 technologies are implicitly working on the assumption that 'freedom' means freedom from the state. This neglects, however, that within capitalist societies, the state can also provide freedom from the vagaries of the market by protecting certain things from commodification. Through an analysis of (1) class and the role of the state; (2) the concentration and centralization of capital; and (3) the role of automation, I argue that the vision of freedom that underpins Bitcoin 2.0 tech is one that neglects the power that capital holds over us in both organizing the structure of our lives, and informing our idea of what it means to be human. In neglecting these other forms of power, I claim that the DAS might be a far more dystopian development than its supporters comprehend, making possible societies that are commodities all the way down.