(also need to clarify a structural issue which is variable...) If you are evaluating economic issues in systematic terms, as this relates to cryptocurrency et al, this evaluation is dependent on how it is observed and in what terms and parameters, beginning with the identity of the observer and the framework of the observation. Thus a person sees or observes a certain scenario in part based on their own conceptualization of what is going on and a threshold of what can be perceived in those specific parameters. And thus an issue of limits and boundary for what is perceptible, say with alternative currency, in relation with the existing economy and how this is considered, in popular terms of groups and mainstream discussions say, which then format or solidify these views, parameters, structures, "beliefs." So people can readily enter into abstractions like capitalism, capital, markets, public, private, profit, equality, inequality, exploitation, communal, etc; though these terms and frameworks are /variable/, depending on how they are being perceived, in what framework and consideration. The views could be only partially true, or of limited truth, versus assumed true in a binary black&white mindset, because it is an agreed upon shared belief or POV, as if this equates with accurate observation (relativism feigning empiricism while never addressing issue of errors or falsifiability of beliefs; "absolutism".) Thus observations of Bitcoin or crypto for that matter _begin in such a condition of observation, and communications and viewpoints operate within such an unchecked domain as /ideas/ that if agreed upon have the appearance or semblance of truth, though in a psychological realm of beliefs, which is not grounded truth in a material framework with everything figured out and errors removed, panoptically validated, error checked and corrected. Taking this structural issue of observation into consideration, which would be required for accurate empirical observations that remove falsity from views as a requirement for modeling of ideas, then leads to addressing warps and imbalances based upon these falsities that persist in common models, that function as if they are true or real, yet which can be ungrounded and faith-based viewpoints or beliefs that are not based on external verifiable truth, and even can be falsified as views/beliefs, though oftentimes observers precisely do not want to acknowledge their own fallibility in these binary viewpoints based on ideology or answered questions, in which too simple solutions then offer up the world as if an issue only of sharing opinions, where the more powerful the viewpoint the more true it is, in some sense. For instance, the poor and people on welfare do not want to work, from the logic* of private mankind. If evaluating the psychology of the observer in this standpoint, it is a self-beneficial approach in certain parameters, because if there the economic system is based on capitalism, it is precisely this gap or shortage that is structurally required in order for some to profit more than others due to this imbalance. In that for someone to win then someone has to lose, and the poor are the losers. Some may not want to work, though some may and have become trapped in structural poverty. And some may work and not get paid for what they do and others may volunteer, which could be the same or different things depending on view. Yet the extension of this belief or prejudice within these terms are that the poor are morally inferior and the rich morally superior in this system of value, as success and failure is pegged to monetary wealth. What this leads to is a type of cannibalistic moralism of the rich who seek to gain absolute profit from within this system, by taking away services to the poor and middle-class, such as health-care or jeopardize mere survival (with views that people should not even be allowed to live or be supported by the private state if monetarily unsuccessful, how fascist is that), and surveillance plays a large role in this, auditing and accounting for dollars that are *theirs*, the basis for further profiting, maximal economy of the poor to allow for the maximal excess and surplus of wealth for the upperclass and rich. In other words, millionaires, billionaires, and middle-class new royalty require homelessness, poverty, lack of survives, to sustain and grown the imbalance, the gap that separates one citizen from another, as divided population. So quality-of-life is viewed criminal if on Social Security and-or Disability or public welfare by the ruling class and they use surveillance and monitoring and actively punish people who try to move out of these scenarios, censoring actions and ruining work tools to disallow work, because the whole system is based on not having people work. That is the big lie involved. And these systems are set up so that you cannot work your way out of it, once on the inside, unless having wealth or connections to get out. There is massive top-down pressure to subjugate people within these systems, not least through taxes that have no data fields to report situations that exist, thus entrapping people for doing their taxes wrong or else requiring a politically-biased tax representative to mediate tax issues in exploitative terms. Also, bureaucracy shuts down, so that paperwork is lost needed to make a claim or phones are not answered, at the same time systems and functioning predictably go awry, and stop functioning correctly. It is dirty warfare at the level of bureaucracy against the citizenry on the inside of these systems, where political bias favors the rich, with state and federal systems supporting and serving this oppression and concentration of power of private wealth of mankind over the public and private citizen. In this way, money itself functions as the mediary of this condition, on behalf of warped private politics providing advantage to some over others, and this is normalized as the everyday situation, one person in competition with another for survival, while some have vastly more than is needed to survive while others are starving, and many cannot maintain even basic survival due to pressures for wealth to occur at the cost of health, food, etc. This is the classic win-lose situation, the proverbial zero-sum game seemingly, and yet it is by default perceived within an 18th century framework as defined and legally allowed by the US constitution, where 'common' relations are defined in *private* terms, of relations between private men, where 'the public' is the shared set of these men in their common interest. Some this logic of private man allows some group of private citizens (wo|men) to represent the public, and those 'not-them' are then /the competition/, other citizens, where profit is gained at their loss. This is the basic model for the economic, political, and social system in exploitative aristocratic if not despotic terms, the more it is refined over the last many _centuries. Thus mainly private men profit from the losses of other men, said to be equally citizens, as well as and especially women (pre-suffrage and beyond). At some point it would not be unimaginable that for others to profit, newborns should just be killed except for the offspring of the wealthy and whatever number of worker children are needed to support them. That is the ugly political ideology underneath these same everyday dynamics. This is not a human viewpoint. Nor can a human viewpoint be allowed within the US constitution- it is *banned* from being reasoned this way, due to authority over its interpretation, as institutionalized and operational within the privatized state, government, education, workplaces, communities. You will be censored for trying to say or speak or reason beyond the default 'shared views of man' as the supreme value and 'shared (private) interest.' If stubborn enough you will be medicated and your physiology changed if not destroyed by psychiatrists so you cannot continue to reason anymore, these tactics in cybernetic defense of the status quo, to keep the ideological machinery running as smoothly and friction-free as possible, for profit. This is the default, where things begin. Someone says- "i want to do [xyz]", and that occurs within this context, framework, realm of communication. These are the dynamics, pressures and forces at work, and the more they are adapted to, the easier it is to succeed _within the existing system. The easier it it to gain money, livelihood, status, ego reward via success not failure, etc. Which all-in-all tends towards mediocrity, at its peak. To a monocultural sameness of only a limited interest and focus, which then the entire population is supporting and serving through their participation. The monetary system of US dollars supports all of these dynamics as the basis for exchange. Entropic flows of power and wealth move from those who are being exploited to those exploiting, structural expropriation is the rule, it is a physical law and psychological framework of believed rightness which then maps to morals and power as if equated with truth, brute force engineering of reality, at the cost of others lives, and reality itself. And so the Internet is squarely situated within this condition, also mediating these dynamics, as if its nervous system and communications backbone that allows for the fluid exchange of this as ideology, where we are little neurons blip and bleep our views within this framework yet that a more massive and over-dominating informational model operates which is not part of this communication, and yet determines what is being said and how, in what acceptable terms. So the shared body (and mind or -capital-) of the state is at war with itself, because only part of it is allowed to live and this is at the expense of the other parts, the whole is divided and then uses the majority of its resources to support only a few of its citizens, while others suffer miserably and die miserable deaths or exist in poverty or struggle to meet basic needs, while a few have friction-free hedonist lifestyles, that maps down into their family tree at local levels as royal or aristocratic hierarchy grounds in the unshared community. Its their body, their mind, yet our bodies, our minds supporting their survival while they seek to eliminate ours for their selfish benefit. That is not against a person, that is the way the state is configured and has destroyed itself via biased and limiting parameters, and how money can serve some people moreso than others. The thing is, first, the idea of capital today is ideological. It is marxist bullshit repeated to allow these dynamics to continue and is not at a resolution to allow those conversations and analysis to accurately deal with this situation in the terms necessary. It views 'wealth' in primarily material terms and does have distinguish to the degree needed to coherently model what is occurring in the dimensions that exist. Consider the idea of capital in relation to architecture, for instance. The human body and the human mind (the duality of thought versus action, or material and 'immaterial' or information, or matter and information) as this relates to an architectural column and and a capital atop it (per the Classical Orders of Western architecture, Doric, Ionic, etc.) This is a conceptual model of the individual and the state, the column is the body and the capital is the mind, and when in a larger structure, the spanning of these columns (via entablature) such as in Greek temple architecture, then allows a larger shared condition to be supported by these individuals (a roof or ceiling, though also, in terms of the Parthenon, Pantheon and oculus of shared interiority). This same conceptualization is on the back of the dollar bill as pyramid, with the pyramid capstone representing an empirical 'eye' of shared identity. What ideological capitalism does with this, when only privatized, is take all the effort of the base supporting structure, all the bodies and minds, and using that in an exploitative way to support the eyesight and interests of only a few, who sit at the top of the pyramid that everyone else supports. Thus some men are at the top of humanity and other men and women and children support this condition, where they are seemingly superior for being 'placed' in such a situation, as if by divine providence and not absolute corruption. And likewise, their vision is limited to themselves and their own interests, which are based on exploitation of others (who are not viewed of the shared set). This is what money has become and effectively is. In contrast, capitalism that is recognized in terms of truth (versus material stuff), where the mind governs over the body and its primitive instincts and base animalistic interests then would have 'reason' be the safeguard to mediate this condition, where governance (democracy, otherwise) vote or tally other views of the group (as potential shared set) to configure these interactions. Yet again, if limited to private mankind and private interests where material profit are first, and external truth can be ignored as a constitutional *right*, then censoring of other human views and the common condition and interest can be ignored and managed away, to sustain the same pyramid scheme as if highest activity, while requiring suppression of others and falsification of beliefs, to enable these dynamics to continue. Which occurs in materialistic terms, where money functions as proof or the truth of this situation, as agreed to by a group of private citizens systematically benefiting from these exploitative terms. The state cannibalizes itself in order to continue its growth, where humans are ground up to enable supermen to have their fantasy lifestyles of the rich and famous reality shows. So money or legal tender or currency then snaps-to-fit (photoshop term, akin to lines of force influence) into this situation and serves it by default, and functions essentially as electrons -- or currency as /current/ -- which has a material dimension in terms of physical stuff or related-thingness yet also an informational dimension, data is entangled with how this money flows and is processed, literally represented by RFID tracking dots and threads though moreso, or prior to this and foundationally, 'the shared truth' that was once agreed upon when defining the standard, that never was upgraded/transformed beyond the original limiting intent of private men as the public (mankind), when since has humankind serving private citizens, to support their private state at public expense. In other words humanity has been disenfranchised by their own state, and its not being addressed or addressable (especially in surveillance crackdown of other thinking, and loss of reasoning within society beyond oppositional binary absolute views) then leads to civil collapse, the commons evaporates between people, and only some people matter within the shared state, retain value as citizens. Or they have more value, and others less. Which is not the original intent, idea or otherwise, which supposedly 'common rights' were supposed to protect, except they were defined in what today are obviously private terms; of man, not of humans. So the idea of currency, is that it allows a fair exchange between people. And for this to occur, a standard of trust needs to exist, truth that is shared between them, about what constitutes and legitimates this as a win-win exchange. In that one person just does not give another their money and get nothing in return, because it would need to balance over all, and be an equitable exchange or trade. (And yet more and more this subversion tactic is occurring via deterioration of production, selling of junk, etc). And thus when 'truth went missing' from exchange, due to one binary viewpoint over another, the common interest in the exchange vanished, and legal protection, where one group has more power and another is disenfranchised yet using the same money. Lawyers best represent the areas this involves and is mediated within, or police, yet gaps exist where nothing is or can be done, and instead a system of institutionalized exploitation and subversive leveraging occurs within and through money, as standardized/normalized which allows win-lose interactions, and the increase in the gap between the exchange becomes the basis for profit. (Paying for something and not receiving it, yet having no recourse, common in e-commerce as business model, 2nd-hand items, selling damaged/subverted goods as new, etc.) In a human monetary system, the same money would be helping everyone. The swindle would be against the group, devaluing the shared currency. People who systematically cheat or exploit others to profit would meet communal justice, whether by police or otherwise. The difference is that the basis for money would include /truth/ as its basis for shared value, a moral condition that is agreed upon for the exchange and transfer. The money itself is not the truth (which is the view today, the physical thing is material truth) and instead what is *represents* is this condition of shared truth, and the ability of one person to trust another and relate in a win-win scenario of combined interaction. In this way, when human beings interact in economic, social, and governing terms, the columns and capitals (minds/truth) spanned in the larger construction leads to a grounding of empirical truth where the collective insight of all people become that 'shared identity' of humanity at the top of the pyramid, that transcendent group condition where many function as one, and work together on behalf of one another and not divided, functioning against or in opposition to one another. So the value of money, often claimed to be defined as CAPITAL, if viewed in base materialistic terms, would be currency itself as a physical object or stuff, that people need to get hold of so as to attain their reality and function in the world as real beings who can actualize their ideas, dreams. As if /truth/ is the material stuff. The cars, the excess, the showcasing of accumulation, wealth, riches, in a superficial if not insecure way that defines the purpose of life and operates within these parameters and not beyond them. The private mind and mindset all powerful, with the illusion that in attaining such material wealth and power, in comparison to others, equates to godliness or god-status, though this is only virtual or a mirage. Its not actual or real power when dealt with in terms beyond or outside or even hidden inside this condition. The idea is that money is privatized by default of its past limiting interpretation to mankind or private citizenry as the shared communal set, which then is made legal as a form of interaction by the state, and propelled into the present unsustainable and hostile condition, set against life itself. In this limiting, materialism answers all questions ideologically, stuff equates with truth, with visible evidence to the limited biased observer where the senses indicate more success and more power equals greater truth, if not divine agency (in backwards terms, including morally, ethically, etc.) This is the opposite way money is supposed to function. The shared set if accurate would serve everyone, if designed and structured correctly and with adequate modeling of the common condition. In that human beings in their public capacity should be the basis for fair exchange and not the private individual, as this pertains to rights and responsibilities, including to others. This transforms issues of property, rights, freedom of speech, censorship, surveillance, tracking, education, law, everything. And what it involves is moving from a private logic* of mankind, to a public and private logic of humanity, where in its private capacity can deal with demographic difference or details (men, women, ethnicity, income, etc). It is this level of capacity that needs first to be secured to equitably address most any ongoing structural issues between or within people and the combined state. It is an issue of mathematics, not of agreed upon opinions about what limited views are possible to share in warped frameworks of private observers, and yet that is the default condition for discourse in this same condition, a realm of ungrounded communication and observation that is unshared and cannot be combined into a larger shared framework precisely because of these limits, related to binary evaluations and false-limits and views that need to be corrected, reconfigured, and then structurally related in accurate terms to get a group view that is coherent, in terms of humanity. This is what is required to establish equitable currency. In this way, truth itself is the guarantee for data in its capacity as shared value for exchange. And in this particular detail is the secret to the mystery of money, because this is its very essence, that then becomes the basis for the economy, to institute a system of fair exchange and trade backed by law, rules, and rights, where it is win-win by default and enforced within these terms. It is *truth* which is at the center of things and defines reality, not stuff as perceived by overly-simplistic evaluation of biased and limited interest. Instead it is about a comprehensive accounting for ideas and material conditions that then allows a concept like capital to operate beyond dogma and the instituted realms of ideology, and engage reality in its truth (where value originates) versus substitute this for the sign (of "capital" as this truth, and in this way replace it with a false-viewpoint that can be manipulated for political benefit to engineer conditions that support limited conceptualization.) In this regard it seems unlikely any new currency could function in terms other than benefiting private citizenry at the cost of the human public, without first revising the US Constitution and other frameworks that define money in these terms, whereby the legal system itself would need to be reframed and grounded to this empirical condition, required to serve it (truth, not money), as with police, educators, institutions, and others. That this standard of measure, where truth is the rule, is what is held in common between people, versus the allowance for lying if of private benefit, as today. It is very possible that a merging of capitalism and communal dynamics are structurally essential and necessary, (what would humanity be if not to distinguish the shared condition of being human, with the subset differences between men and women, for instance as this relates to public/private.) and thus perhaps also there could be currencies that co-exist in multiple ways that mediate different dynamics, where profit and no-profit coexist in the same model for when the wiring is optimal and equitable in those terms. Somewhat like analog and digital circuits, one or the other versus both, which coincidentally is the model of the human nervous system, and the state itself as global nervous system noosphere, though now with a stupid digital brain of a false-computational god seeking to oppress populations as if 'higher mind' when a base motivation of power, serving death & falsity. *logical reasoning.