The functions and consequences of monetary policy effect history. . . or is it the reverse; the functions and consequences of history effect monetary policy? Maybe both! I was reading a history novel, *A Distant Mirror; The Calamitous 14th Century (*by Barbara W. Tuchmann) and I was reminded of the qualities of certain monies in history. Certain patterns not unfamiliar to us Crypto natives that listen to podcasts on repeat.

Here is the phrase . . .

“Given an inadequate and obsolete system, the King had to devise substitutes like the sales tax- called maltôte because it was so hated - or the equally unpopular salt tax; or else he fell back on devaluing the coinage (emphasis mine). In disruption of prices, rents, debts, and credit, the effect of this subterfuge for taxation was regularly disastrous. . . “

”And in the year 1343 Philip of Valois (the king previously mentioned) made fifteen deniers worth 3,” wrote one chronicler.”

As is seen above, the State, being a player on the world stage and victim to other states invasions or trade wars, it must necessarily change its monetary policy according to circumstance whether that be a form of emergency or necessity or arbitrary reaction (for example the Federal Reserve of the United States reacting to COVID)

On the other hand, with new digital blockchain monies on the rise, they can serve as mediums and investments for individuals and possibly mediums of exchange for State actors in global trade if they wish to circumvent sanctions (The West seizing Russia’s assets in Western banks at the start of the Ukraine conflict.) These forms of money perhaps do not have this same pressure to alter their monetary policy, as they are not States on the global stage acting and reacting to geopolitical tug-of-wars. They (digital monies) in a sense, have less of an ego and less interests. Less embodied and more abstract, they are not State monies that have multiple ways of becoming corrupted and controlled to be used as a sword or shield.

What interests does the Bitcoin blockchain or any decentralized blockchain care to censor any individuals transaction? “It” has the interest to include all fair transactions, as to collect fees to validators/miners. Why be exclusionary? Blockchains wish to absorb more and more monetary activity for its own sake (Im speaking as if blockchains had interests in this case) But when Power is involved, it must be exclusionary to preserve itself. Sure, there are human Bitcoin maximalists or ETH Maxis or Sol Maxis, but overall these systems are impartial and you could load up a wallet anonymously and begin to transact. I won’t get into the specifics of MEV, transaction prioritizaition arbitrage, or the future of encrypted mempools, since these blockchain money systems are not fully perfected yet.

The functions and consequences of monetary policy effect history. . . or is it the reverse; the functions and consequences of history effect monetary policy? Maybe both! I was reading a history novel, *A Distant Mirror; The Calamitous 14th Century (*by Barbara W. Tuchmann) and I was reminded of the qualities of certain monies in history. Certain patterns not unfamiliar to us Crypto natives that listen to podcasts on repeat.

Here is the phrase . . .

“Given an inadequate and obsolete system, the King had to devise substitutes like the sales tax- called maltôte because it was so hated - or the equally unpopular salt tax; or else he fell back on devaluing the coinage (emphasis mine). In disruption of prices, rents, debts, and credit, the effect of this subterfuge for taxation was regularly disastrous. . . “

”And in the year 1343 Philip of Valois (the king previously mentioned) made fifteen deniers worth 3,” wrote one chronicler.”

As is seen above, the State, being a player on the world stage and victim to other states invasions or trade wars, it must necessarily change its monetary policy according to circumstance whether that be a form of emergency or necessity or arbitrary reaction (for example the Federal Reserve of the United States reacting to COVID)

On the other hand, with new digital blockchain monies on the rise, they can serve as mediums and investments for individuals and possibly mediums of exchange for State actors in global trade if they wish to circumvent sanctions (The West seizing Russia’s assets in Western banks at the start of the Ukraine conflict.) These forms of money perhaps do not have this same pressure to alter their monetary policy, as they are not States on the global stage acting and reacting to geopolitical tug-of-wars. They (digital monies) in a sense, have less of an ego and less interests. Less embodied and more abstract, they are not State monies that have multiple ways of becoming corrupted and controlled to be used as a sword or shield.

What interests does the Bitcoin blockchain or any decentralized blockchain care to censor any individuals transaction? “It” has the interest to include all fair transactions, as to collect fees to validators/miners. Why be exclusionary? Blockchains wish to absorb more and more monetary activity for its own sake (Im speaking as if blockchains had interests in this case) But when Power is involved, it must be exclusionary to preserve itself. Sure, there are human Bitcoin maximalists or ETH Maxis or Sol Maxis, but overall these systems are impartial and you could load up a wallet anonymously and begin to transact. I won’t get into the specifics of MEV, transaction prioritizaition arbitrage, or the future of encrypted mempools, since these blockchain money systems are not fully perfected yet.