December 2021 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

As many as 200 Americans have now reported possible symptoms of 'Havana Syndrome'
by jim bell 22 Jul '22

22 Jul '22

https://news.yahoo.com/many-200-americans-now-reported-083000770.html Almost half of those reporting symptoms are linked to the CIA, say officials, with possible cases in Berlin and Vienna and on every continent but Antarctica._--__-------- Jim Bell's comment follows. Given how easy it should be to do an audio or radio/microwave spectrum analysis, using a SDR and smartphone, I'm surprised this is still so mysterious.

6 14

[spam] [personal] information on the Unihertz Titan, a mobile phone
by k 19 Jul '22

19 Jul '22

I have this phone. It's more rugged than my existing phone. I'd like to maintain it with sequential images of the storage and firmware, in the hope of keeping it revertible to a stable state when it gets funny. [i also have a pinephone in the mail. the titan was a surprise gift.] Titan information on changing IMEI etc: https://unihertz-titan.neocities.org/ Company forum, flashware download from above site mentions it came from this forum: https://www.unihertz.com/pages/forum [javascript from shopify.com] NOTE: this forum says it is pending construction. very strange, like a timewarp. links to official facebook, twitter, reddit. Forum posts found on xda, crackberry, androidforums. Maybe reply with an http paste of the neocities site.

4 30

Globalism: MINDSPACE - From 9/11 to The Great Reset Matrix
by grarpamp 05 Jul '22

05 Jul '22

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/from-9-11-to-the-great-reset/ https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%2… https://www.bi.team/publications/mindspace/ " Something’s gotta give. And then, out of the blue, it did. A drive by design towards ironclad concentration of power and geoeconomic diktats was first conceptualized – under the deceptive cover of “sustainable development” – already in 2015 at the UN (here it is, in detail). Now, this new operating system – or technocratic digital dystopia – is finally being codified, packaged and “sold” since mid summer via a lavish, concerted propaganda campaign. The whole Planet Lockdown hysteria that elevated Covid-19 to post-modern Black Plague proportions has been consistently debunked, for instance here and here, drawing from the highly respected, original Cambridge source. The de facto controlled demolition of large swathes of the global economy allowed corporate and vulture capitalism, world wide, to rake untold profits out of the destruction of collapsed businesses. And all that proceeded with widespread public acceptance – an astonishing process of voluntary servitude. None of it is accidental. As an example, over ten years ago, even before setting up a – privatized – Behavioral Insights Team, the British government was very much interested in “influencing” behavior, in collaboration with the London School of Economics and Imperial College. The end result was the MINDSPACE report. That was all about behavioral science influencing policymaking and most of all, imposing neo-Orwellian population control. MINDSPACE, crucially, featured close collaboration between Imperial College and the Santa Monica-based RAND corporation. Translation: the authors of the absurdly flawed computer models that fed the Planet Lockdown paranoia working in conjunction with the top Pentagon-linked think tank. https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset https://intelligence.weforum.org/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/strategic-intelligence-widget-artifi… https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/covid19-this-is-how-to-get-the-great… And that is more than enough to beautifully set up “the cure”: The Great Reset. The beating heart The Great Reset was officially launched in early June by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the natural habitat of Davos Man. Its conceptual base is something the WEF describes as Strategic Intelligence Platform: “a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making”. The Great Reset is immensely ambitious, spanning over 50 fields of knowledge and practice. It interconnects everything from economy recovery recommendations to “sustainable business models”, from restoration of the environment to the redesign of social contracts. The beating heart of this matrix is – what else – the Strategic Intelligence Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: “sustainable development”, “global governance”, capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity, LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly – future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity, blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI). The Great Reset presupposes that all stakeholders – as in the whole planet – must toe the line. Otherwise, as Schwab stresses, we will have “more polarization, nationalism, racism, increased social unrest and conflicts”. In the end, only an all-in-one Plan A applies for making these systems interact seamlessly: the Great Reset – shorthand for a New World Order that has always been glowingly evoked, but never implemented. There is no Plan B. Whether Covid-19’s ultimate “window of opportunity” presented itself as a mere coincidence or by design, will always remain a very juicy question. Already three months ago, Schwab’s book hinted that the more everyone is mired in the global paralysis, the more it’s clear that things will never be allowed (italics mine) to return to what we considered normal. What has been imposed as an ironclad consensus is that without a Covid-19 vaccine there’s no possibility of anything resembling normality. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/15/how-biosecurity-is-enabli… What matters above all is the “window of opportunity” offered by Covid-19, boosting, among other issues, the expansion of what I previously described as Digital Neo-Feudalism – or Algorithm gobbling up Politics. No wonder politico-economic institutions from the WTO to the EU as well as the Trilateral Commission are already investing in “rejuvenation” processes, code for even more concentration of power. "

1 2

Limits to growth
by coderman 22 Jun '22

22 Jun '22

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-pre… MIT Predicted in 1972 That Society Will Collapse This Century. New Research Shows We’re on Schedule. A 1972 MIT study predicted that rapid economic growth would lead to societal collapse in the mid 21st century. A new paper shows we’re unfortunately right on schedule. NA by [Nafeez Ahmed](https://www.vice.com/en/contributor/nafeez-ahmed) July 14, 2021, 6:00am - - - [GettyImages-1189106363] Image: Getty A remarkable new study by a director at one of the largest accounting firms in the world has found that a famous, decades-old warning from MIT about the risk of industrial civilization collapsing appears to be accurate based on new empirical data. As the world looks forward to a rebound in economic growth following the devastation wrought by the pandemic, the research raises urgent questions about the risks of attempting to simply return to the pre-pandemic ‘normal.’ In 1972, a team of MIT scientists got together to study the risks of civilizational collapse. Their [system dynamics model](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/04/sc… published by the Club of Rome identified impending ‘limits to growth’ (LtG) that meant industrial civilization was on track to collapse sometime within the 21st century, due to overexploitation of planetary resources. The controversial MIT analysis generated heated debate, and was widely derided at the time by pundits who misrepresented its findings and methods. But the analysis has now received stunning vindication from a study written by a senior director at professional services giant KPMG, one of the 'Big Four' accounting firms as measured by global revenue. Limits to growth The study was published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology in November 2020 and is available [on the KPMG website](https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html). It concludes that the current business-as-usual trajectory of global civilization is heading toward the terminal decline of economic growth within the coming decade—and at worst, could trigger societal collapse by around 2040. The study represents the first time a top analyst working within a mainstream global corporate entity has taken the ‘limits to growth’ model seriously. Its author, Gaya Herrington, is Sustainability and Dynamic System Analysis Lead at KPMG in the United States. However, she decided to undertake the research as a personal project to understand how well the MIT model stood the test of time. The study itself is not affiliated or conducted on behalf of KPMG, and does not necessarily reflect the views of KPMG. Herrington performed the research as an extension of [her Masters thesis](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868) at Harvard University in her capacity as an advisor to the Club of Rome. However, she is quoted [explaining her project](https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html) on the KPMG website as follows: “Given the unappealing prospect of collapse, I was curious to see which scenarios were aligning most closely with empirical data today. After all, the book that featured this world model was a bestseller in the 70s, and by now we’d have several decades of empirical data which would make a comparison meaningful. But to my surprise I could not find recent attempts for this. So I decided to do it myself.” Titled ‘Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data’, the study attempts to assess how MIT’s ‘World3’ model stacks up against new empirical data. Previous studies that attempted to do this found that the model’s worst-case scenarios accurately reflected real-world developments. However, the [last study](https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2763500/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf) of this nature was completed in 2014. The risk of collapse Herrington’s new analysis examines data across 10 key variables, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint. She found that the latest data most closely aligns with two particular scenarios, ‘BAU2’ (business-as-usual) and ‘CT’ (comprehensive technology). “BAU2 and CT scenarios show a halt in growth within a decade or so from now,” the study concludes. “Both scenarios thus indicate that continuing business as usual, that is, pursuing continuous growth, is not possible. Even when paired with unprecedented technological development and adoption, business as usual as modelled by LtG would inevitably lead to declines in industrial capital, agricultural output, and welfare levels within this century.” Study author Gaya Herrington told Motherboard that in the MIT World3 models, collapse “does not mean that humanity will cease to exist,” but rather that “economic and industrial growth will stop, and then decline, which will hurt food production and standards of living… In terms of timing, the BAU2 scenario shows a steep decline to set in around 2040.” [image3.png] The ‘Business-as-Usual’ scenario (Source: Herrington, 2021 The end of growth? In the comprehensive technology (CT) scenario, economic decline still sets in around this date with a range of possible negative consequences, but this does not lead to societal collapse. [image1.png] The ‘Comprehensive Technology’ scenario (Source: Herrington, 2021 Unfortunately, the scenario which was the least closest fit to the latest empirical data happens to be the most optimistic pathway known as ‘SW’ (stabilized world), in which civilization follows a sustainable path and experiences the smallest declines in economic growth—based on a combination of technological innovation and widespread investment in public health and education. [image2.png] )The ‘Stabilized World’ Scenario (Source: Herrington, 2021) Although both the business-as-usual and comprehensive technology scenarios point to the coming end of economic growth in around 10 years, only the BAU2 scenario “shows a clear collapse pattern, whereas CT suggests the possibility of future declines being relatively soft landings, at least for humanity in general.” Both scenarios currently “seem to align quite closely not just with observed data,” Herrington concludes in her study, indicating that the future is open. A window of opportunity While focusing on the pursuit of continued economic growth for its own sake will be futile, the study finds that technological progress and increased investments in public services could not just avoid the risk of collapse, but lead to a new stable and prosperous civilization operating safely within planetary boundaries. But we really have only the next decade to change course. “At this point therefore, the data most aligns with the CT and BAU2 scenarios which indicate a slowdown and eventual halt in growth within the next decade or so, but World3 leaves open whether the subsequent decline will constitute a collapse,” the study concludes. Although the ‘stabilized world’ scenario “tracks least closely, a deliberate trajectory change brought about by society turning toward another goal than growth is still possible. The LtG work implies that this window of opportunity is closing fast.” In a presentation at the World Economic Forum in 2020 delivered in her capacity as a KPMG director, Herrington [argued](https://www.weflive.com/story/e968fb0963974e1e8f6c636e5654cbc2) for ‘agrowth’—an agnostic approach to growth which focuses on other economic goals and priorities. “Changing our societal priorities hardly needs to be a capitulation to grim necessity,” she said. “Human activity can be regenerative and our productive capacities can be transformed. In fact, we are seeing examples of that happening right now. Expanding those efforts now creates a world full of opportunity that is also sustainable.” She noted how the rapid development and deployment of vaccines at unprecedented rates in response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that we are capable of responding rapidly and constructively to global challenges if we choose to act. We need exactly such a determined approach to the environmental crisis. “The necessary changes will not be easy and pose transition challenges but a sustainable and inclusive future is still possible,” said Herrington. The best available data suggests that what we decide over the next 10 years will determine the long-term fate of human civilization. Although the odds are on a knife-edge, Herrington pointed to a “rapid rise” in environmental, social and good governance priorities as a basis for optimism, signalling the change in thinking taking place in both governments and businesses. She told me that perhaps the most important implication of her research is that it’s not too late to create a truly sustainable civilization that works for all.

4 6

The Verge: Elon Musk says Starlink internet service will be ‘fully mobile’ in 2021
by jim bell 27 May '22

27 May '22

The Verge: Elon Musk says Starlink internet service will be ‘fully mobile’ in 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22388378/elon-musk-starlink-satellite-in… Jim Bell's comment: I imagine, and hope, that this news will signal the ability of the Starlink system to be used by people in "freedom-hostile" nations. But, that may depend on how this is implemented. Can anyone buy a dish and use it anywhere on Earth? Without regard to political boundaries?

3 6

The New Yorker: How Vulnerable Is G.P.S.?
by jim bell 24 May '22

24 May '22

The New Yorker: How Vulnerable Is G.P.S.?. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-vulnerable-is-gps

2 1

Jan6: Patriot Purge (Documentary, Censored, Banned, Free Speech)
by grarpamp 07 May '22

07 May '22

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ac4pyM37tJnb Patriot Purge - Full Docu 1:09:59 https://tuckercarlson.com/show/tucker-carlson-originals/ https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=patriot+purge Panicked Democrats Call for Tucker Carlson to be Banned >From Television for Patriot Purge Documentary

1 1

DropGangs: Post and Parcel Delivery Services Fully Monitored [re: WikiLeaks was: FreeAssange.net]
by grarpamp 17 Apr '22

17 Apr '22

> Guess who had a PO Box next to Wikileaks > > https://www.theage.com.au/national/world-leaders-would-love-the-key-to-this… > > They avoided a drone strike on the university by demolishing the > Melbourne Uni post office voluntarily: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABWuKVaT13s > > After they destroyed that, they took out the local pub too: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yCKYW5YUWw The USA USPS takes automated pictures of all items passing through its facilities, OCR them, stores them forever, and gives them away to whoever they like that comes asking. Mail and delivery services worldwide are now doing similar, including requiring and recording government photo ID to send parcels and letters, storing all camera footage, facial, and ALPR logs, of the facilities forever, etc.

5 8

Bantering with punk-stasi-victim was Re: Slavery was Formally Abolished Today, Happy Freedom Day
by Karl 05 Mar '22

05 Mar '22

On 2/2/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks(a)tfwno.gf> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:48:18 -0500 > Karl <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Juan, you don't mean these things you say here. > > Of course I mean what I say. And I say what I mean. And I'm one of the many reincarnations of hope, but that doesn't mean people should ever make decisions based off of that. >> You don't have to say them in this thread. > > Why would I let that sort of US govt propaganda pass? I find it especially > repulsive. Thanks for keeping the thread nice for the rest of the day I posted it <3 It's is _disgusting_ that they call it human trafficking now instead of slavery, and that makes it _obvious_ that slavers influenced them. It's still pretty obvious they're resisting that. > Maybe you shouldn't be promoting the US govt on this list? And painting the > US govt as being opposed to slavery, a preposterous idea. There are at least two different US governments: 1. the words written on paper 2. the behaviors that people actually engage in and they're blurry. On paper, the US govt is firmly opposed to slavery. Most people believe in the paper and hate the actions. It would be ideal if we could share human trafficking rescue avenues that are run by anarchists, but if I did that they would get obliterated by their local government's unwritten behaviors. > https://humantraffickinghotline.org/national-hotline-overview > > "received $3.5 million through competitive funding through the U.S. > Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and > Families, Grant # 90ZV0134-01-00. The project will be financed with 71.87% > of federal funds and 28.13% ($1.37 million) by non-governmental sources" > > of course that '28%' of 'non govt sources' comes from 'private' fascists of > the bill gates-soros kind. It's shitty that our avenues are the ones that are "authorised". It's ludicrous to ask every victim to ask for help themselves, when victims are taught alternate languages where asking for help is spoken in words that keep everyone enslaved. I don't know this situation well enough to respect you, here, but it's obvious that you're posting things that are illogical more than it is worth your time to do so. It's obvious that me, zenaan, and professor rat are also doing these things. The things we're posting help the interests of people with a lot of money. Those people have probably effectively enslaved us in some way. Some of us may be viscerally and highly aware of that being the case, and that set of people may not be related to the set of people able to talk about it, but all of us can get government aid for being abused if we demonstrate real symptoms of abuse.

4 18

Cryptocurrency: Bonfire of the Currencies, WarOnCash, CBDCs
by grarpamp 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/cash-cryptocurrencies-future-of-m… https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674258440 https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178363/the-curse-of-cash https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/01/crypto-boom-poses-new-challenges-to-financ… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-15/crypto-market-retakes-2-… https://ur.booksc.eu/book/78468213/2295bd https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2000/02/17/e-cash-20 https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/5/1798/5427781 https://www.sanddollar.bs/ Two recent books by renowned economists have set the stage for today's great debate over the future of money in a digital age. In particular, public and private moneys are entering into a sustained rivalry, with far-reaching implications for markets and politics. Eswar S. Prasad, The Future of Money: How the Digital Revolution Is Transforming Currencies and Finance, Harvard University Press, 2021. Kenneth S. Rogoff, The Curse of Cash: How Large-Denomination Bills Aid Crime and Tax Evasion and Constrain Monetary Policy, Princeton University Press, 2017. Ready or not, the financial world is being forced to face the possibility of a future without traditional notes and coins. Is cash going the way of the dodo? Should the prospect of its extinction be welcomed or feared? And what would its disappearance mean for domestic and global markets and politics? Two recent books by renowned economists have set the stage for the coming debates, highlighting two questions in particular. The first is whether cash should disappear. The second is whether it actually will disappear. Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Eswar Prasad of Cornell University have much to say on both issues. DOES MONEY MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND? For Rogoff, cash is a curse. Paper currency, he argues, “lies at the heart of some of today’s most intractable public finance and monetary problems,” and thus should be phased out as quickly as possible. He highlights two big problems. On one hand, by permitting large recurrent and anonymous transactions, cash facilitates tax evasion and other crimes. High-denomination bills like US “Benjamins” ($100 notes) or Switzerland’s 1,000 franc note play a starring role in a broad range of criminal activities, from drug trafficking and money laundering to racketeering and extortion. On the other hand, cash handicaps monetary policy. The availability of currency effectively sets a “zero lower bound” on interest rates. Returns on Treasury bills or other fixed-income securities cannot fall much below zero so long as people have the option of holding paper money, which at least pays zero interest. Cash therefore ties central bankers’ hands, inhibiting negative-interest-rate policies. The Curse of Cash represents the culmination of a campaign that Rogoff has waged for more than two decades, and he pulls no punches in his advocacy of a “less-cash” economy. Written in accessible if somewhat colorless language, it is a clarion call for action – in effect, a manifesto for our times. The sense of urgency is palpable. Prasad, by contrast, is more in the forecasting business. He believes we are in the midst of a financial revolution that is being driven by “FinTech” – the ongoing wave of innovations in financial technologies that are dramatically disrupting traditional ways of doing business. In the vanguard are cryptocurrencies, a new class of financial instruments that threaten to displace conventional notes and coins. “The era of cash is drawing to an end,” Prasad declares, though he hesitates to offer any firm predictions concerning what will come next. Prasad’s text is relatively easy to read, showing flashes of humor despite the complexities of the subject. Its analysis, however, is ultimately inconclusive, because most of its discussions end cautiously (and rather unhelpfully) with words like “seem,” “may,” or “could.” In a book that aspires to be virtually encyclopedic in its coverage, Prasad’s takeaway message is that there remain “many unanswered questions.” THE FINTECH DISRUPTION Cryptocurrencies have become one of the hottest sectors in finance, led by Bitcoin, which is barely a decade old. New cryptocurrencies have since proliferated like dandelions; according to the International Monetary Fund, there are around 9,000 digital tokens listed on various exchanges today. Earlier this year, the market value of all crypto assets surpassed $2 trillion – a tenfold increase in not much more than a year. The roots of the crypto boom go back to the dawn of the digital age in the last years of the twentieth century. Traditional notes and coins are creatures of an analog world, physical in nature and reliant on face-to-face interactions. Cryptocurrencies, by contrast, are digital – that is, based on encrypted strings of zeros and ones – and transferable through vast electronic networks. Once computers and the internet came to be part of our daily life, smart operators realized that it might be possible to create units of purchasing power that would be fully usable through cyberspace. The race was on to produce “virtual” money that could be employed as easily as conventional paper money or coins to acquire real goods, services, or assets. The earliest attempts to achieve this, going back to the 1990s, aimed simply to facilitate the settlement of payments electronically. These initiatives, which The Economist once playfully labeled “e-cash version 1.0,” included diverse card-based systems as well as network-based systems. Operating on a principle of full pre-payment by users, each scheme functioned as not much more than a convenient proxy for conventional cash – in effect, something akin to a glorified traveler’s check. Few caught on with the general public. Subsequent models, “e-cash version 2.0,” were more ambitious, aspiring to produce genuine substitutes for traditional notes and coins. Examples included Flooz (using the comedienne Whoopi Goldberg as a spokesperson) and Beenz. But the impact of these schemes, too, was limited, because most were offered as a reward for buying products or services from designated vendors – constituting, in effect, updated electronic versions of ancient scrip. Vendor-specific media live on in airline mileage programs and the like; but they failed to provide a direct substitute for traditional currency. Most disappeared after the brief downturn in financial markets at the turn of the century. REVOLUTIONARY DAWN Then came Bitcoin, a revolutionary innovation introduced in 2009 by a person (or persons) who remains anonymous. Bitcoin could be called “e-cash version 3.0.” Designed as a decentralized payments system independent of governments and private financial institutions, the currency has soared in popularity. Since Bitcoin’s unheralded inception, its price has skyrocketed from $1 per unit to as much as $66,000 earlier this month. Many other digital currencies, including increasingly well-known rivals such as Ether, Litecoin, and Ripple, have followed in its wake, especially over the past year. Prasad calls Bitcoin the “granddaddy” of cryptocurrencies. Digital money is now an established part of the global financial ecology, and has been declared legal tender in two countries, El Salvador and Cuba. Prasad finds it hard to conceal his enthusiasm for Bitcoin, which he describes as “truly ingenious and innovative.” Words like “magic,” “genius,” and “elegant” are liberally sprinkled throughout his discussion. For anyone who really wants to understand how the currency works in all its technical splendor, there is no better introduction than Prasad’s fourth chapter, which dwells on the Bitcoin revolution in elaborate detail. There you will find a step-by-step tutorial on the currency’s underpinnings – the so-called blockchain technology that enables Bitcoin to function without any trusted central authority to manage it. No government agency or private institution is needed to validate transactions. Instead, blockchain relies exclusively on a public consensus mechanism managed through a peer-to-peer network that alerts participants to every exchange in real time. A publicly shared ledger of transactions is created and maintained in a decentralized network. The ledger is called a blockchain because once transactions coming into the network are grouped into blocks of data and validated, the blocks are then chained together. The “magic” comes from delegating trust and verification to the public square. As Prasad breathlessly puts it, “This is people power, backed up by computing power, at its finest.” People power to manage money is obviously attractive to libertarians and others who, taking inspiration from the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, have long argued for the “denationalization” of currency. Governments, driven by politics, all too frequently abuse their control of “state” money, sooner or later generating runaway inflation. In recent years, we have seen that ruinous process devastate countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Cybercurrencies, by contrast, are designed to rely on market forces to keep the growth of money supply in line with real economic activity. Inflation, crypto enthusiasts contend, will be contained by the wisdom of crowds. THE CRACKS IN CRYPTO But there are also downsides, and they are not insignificant. First and most obvious is the danger that competition among cybercurrencies could lead their sponsors to take ever greater risks. Many of the thousands of digital tokens currently available are backed by nothing more than flimsy promises. Even so-called “stablecoins” like Tether or USD Coin, which in principle are fully backed by conventional reserves, are in practice often quite lacking in transparency. Observers frequently liken today’s cybercurrencies to the private bank notes that circulated in the United States during the co-called free-banking era of the nineteenth century. But that system was fragile and frequently subject to “runs,” owing to the ebb and flow of public trust. Crowds did not always show the greatest wisdom. Why should we expect today’s cybercurrencies to be any less prone to panics and wild price fluctuations? Just in the last year, Bitcoin has traded up and down by over 50%. Prasad calls it “wacky ... a wild roller-coaster ride.” Others might call it a bubble that could burst any time. Second, the prospect of unfettered price volatility limits cybercurrencies’ usefulness as a medium of exchange. Who wants to accept payment in a currency whose value might drop through the floor tomorrow? Admittedly, there will always be some market actors, particularly criminal elements, who might value cryptocurrencies’ supposed anonymity enough to take the risk. It stands to reason, then, that Rogoff’s complaints about the role of cash in facilitating tax evasion and other nefarious activities apply to cybercurrencies as well. But Rogoff himself suggests that the real threat from cybercurrencies lies elsewhere. “Yes,” he says, “digital currencies raise important questions for the future, but more as competitors for other financial instruments and institutions, not so much for paper currency.” Prasad agrees, suggesting that the allure of digital currencies for illegal activities is wearing off. Some scholars, however, estimate that criminal activities still account for as much as 50% of Bitcoin transactions. Moreover, the legitimate business world does not appear to be attracted to the quotidian use of cybercurrencies. Instead, cybercurrencies have primarily become a vehicle for risk-loving investors, serving as a class of speculative assets reminiscent of the seventeenth-century tulip mania in the Netherlands, when a single bulb sold for the equivalent of a mansion on the Amsterdam Grand Canal. In a sense, the “cybercurrency” label is a misnomer, because none of these new creatures actually perform all three of the traditional functions of money: medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. They are, at best, liquid quasi-moneys. THE STATE VS. CRYPTO Looming over the entire incipient debate is the possibility of a real threat to state authority in monetary affairs. The more that ordinary transactions come to be conducted in cryptocurrencies, the more difficult it will be for monetary authorities to manage existing payments systems via traditional interest-rate policy or open-market operations. If traditional cash becomes largely extinct, so, too, does much of the power of central banks. That is why we now see mounting interest around the world in the development of central-bank digital currencies (CBDCs). As Prasad points out, there is nothing mysterious about central-bank digital money. It is simply an existing fiat currency that is issued by a monetary authority in digital form as a complement to or in place of conventional notes and coins. For a clear guide to the merits and risks of such an innovation, readers could do worse than to consult Prasad’s sixth chapter, which provides a careful point-by-point examination of the case for CBDCs. The rationale for CBDCs is simple: fight fire with fire. If conventional paper money really is going the way of the dodo, monetary authorities should create a more attractive alternative. In any competition with privately issued rivals, CBDCs would have the advantage of being firmly backed by the full faith and credit of their sovereign governments. One country, the Bahamas, has already created a CBDC of its own – the sand dollar – and others like Sweden and Uruguay are quickly moving in the same direction. Who will prevail? Writing some five years ago, before the cryptocurrency craze really took off, Rogoff expressed confidence in governments’ ability to fend off any competitive threat from the private sector. This is not the first time, he points out, that currency innovations have emerged from the private sector to leapfrog ahead of publicly issued money, at least for a time. In every previous instance, he insists, innovations were either tamed by regulation or appropriated by governments, which have broad advantages in providing a safe guaranteed asset. Some governments, most notably China, have already begun cracking down on cryptocurrencies. “If the private sector comes up with a much better way of doing things,” Rogoff observes, not without a touch of cynicism, “the government will eventually adapt and regulate as necessary to eventually win out.” But Prasad is not so sure. Writing more recently, he notes that cryptocurrencies have come a long way in the last half-decade. Yes, he concedes, central banks are likely to remain central. But that does not rule out sustained rivalry between the private and public sectors. Privately issued digital currencies have competitive advantages of their own, including faster, lower-cost transactions and broader access to financial products and services. A “glorious future” beckons, Prasad concludes – before adding, “perhaps.”

1 1