In message <9408072158.memo.40958@BIX.com> peace@bix.com writes:

I can recall that many years back the casinos in Las Vegas all accepted the chips from the other ones and then had a great exchange each day where the accounts were settled up. Even the gift shops took chips in place of cash. The US Treasury put a stop to this as it was considered to be a replacement for cash.

Also I hear a lot about bearer bonds, but never in the US. OTOH the NYC subways have started a cash card that they expect merchants to accept in lieu of coins. It would be nice to know what the Feds will or won't accept. BTW, does it matter if the e$ are US denominated? Could e$ be presented as travelers checks? The possibilities here are extremely interesting.

There is a small point to be made here which I think is really a big point. The US government does not object to the use of financial instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another accepted currency). Most of us use such financial instruments daily -- checks and credit cards, for examples. Most financial transactions involve no cash at all. If an e$ is backed by US $1.00, the government will not object. The government objects if you create an alternative currency. Barter systems based on scrip are an alternative currency, and therefore illegal. If you had $1,000,000 in the bank and wrote out and signed 1,000,000 checks for $1.00 each, I think that these could be traded without violating any laws. But if you issue $e carelessly, you will probably find that you are acting as a bank, and therefore violating several Federal laws. You also need to be concerned about Federal regulations covering the import and export of money. I think that at $5,000 or $10,000 you have to report the transaction. I believe that the forms issued on airplanes make it clear that checks and other financial instruments are included. The action taken to stop the exchange of tokens between casinos would seem to contradict this. It would be useful if someone were able to find more information on this. The legal point might be that the tokens simply had an amount written on them ("$100) with no currency specified and without the name of a bank directed to pay this amount -- having said this, I am reasonably sure that they would not allow banks to pay out against their tokens, and so therefore they would definitely represent an alternative currency, and not an IOU. -- Jim Dixon