Like cars that are manufactured, then used as transportation and eventually removed from circulation, money (and by that I mean credit money) also has a life-cycle. Money gets created when a bank makes a loan, circulates as a bookkeeping entry in the banking system, and then gets destroyed/cancelled when the loan is repaid.

What I am saying is that almost all of the projects that claim to replace banks deal only with the circulation of money, and not with its creation and cancellation. It is the money creation that is actually the principal function of banks, the destruction follows more or less automatically.

Money creation, which happens via lending, involves human interaction, knowing a person or company, their history, knowing their business potential, earnings and overall financial situation. The concepts of centralised or decentralised systems are completely irrelevant to this process. They only become relevant when the money has been created, and needs to be moved around.

Basically my point is/was that systems that facilitate money and asset transfers should not be called banking systems, but payment systems. But then maybe language has moved on already, maybe I have to accept that in modern parlance the term “bank” often does not refer to a credit institution any more…

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.