Introduction: Money as the Clock of Economic Time
Every monetary system can be viewed as a clock measuring economic time. It allows us to compare the present with the future, distinguish current value from future value, and determine the viability of investments. However, the modern world lives in chaos: the cash clock, the gold clock, and the Bitcoin clock all show different times. The economy struggles to read them all at once, striving to distinguish market signals from political noise. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial to grasping how a stable measure of value builds the foundations of knowledge and social trust.
Gold and Bitcoin: Objective Clocks of Economic Time
Gold functions as a mechanical clock—its hands move with great effort because every gram of bullion requires real labor and energy. Bitcoin is its digital counterpart: an algorithmic clock. Its supply is mathematically finite and predictable, making it resistant to arbitrary political decisions. Both systems strive to be an objective measure of value, anchored in physical or mathematical scarcity.
According to Claude Shannon’s theory, money should be a pure information channel. When central banks manipulate the supply of fiat money, they generate noise that distorts market signals. Unlike the "town hall clock" of cash, which authorities can reset at will, gold and Bitcoin offer a measure that does not lie, allowing the market to distinguish between successful and flawed strategies.
Issuer Credibility and Lessons from Historical Noise
The stability of a monetary system rests on trust in the issuer. Satoshi Nakamoto rightly observed that the history of conventional currencies is a chronicle of breaches of that trust. When money becomes deregulated and ceases to perform its informational function, the economy turns into a gamble. Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic is a drastic example of how the destruction of a measure of value leads to the collapse of social bonds and paves the way for radicalism.
Modern cases like Turkey and Argentina show that prioritizing political goals over monetary stability forces citizens to flee toward alternative benchmarks. When the measure "trembles," the market loses its ability to learn from its own mistakes, and economic participants begin calculating political risk instead of forecasting phenomena. Monetary credibility is therefore a necessary condition for the permanence of the social contract.
Money as Ritual and the Digital Threat of CBDCs
From a sociological perspective, money is a secular ritual in which every transaction is an act of faith in the community. However, as Karl Polanyi warned, treating money solely as a commodity destroys the social fabric. The greatest challenge comes from Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Their programmability allows for the introduction of conditional money or expiration dates, transforming it from a coordination tool into an instrument for precise behavioral control.
Such technocratic control represents a digital threat to freedom and privacy. In line with Stanisław Lem’s futuristic vision, technology may cause monetary systems to become autonomous mechanisms beyond human control. Money then ceases to be a clock of truth and becomes a hierarchical filter that decides who can participate in social life and on what terms.
A Stable Measure of Value Builds Social Trust
To maintain credibility, money must embody the irreversibility of time and opportunity cost. A stable measure of value is not merely a technical parameter but the foundation of economic knowledge. The programmability and composability of new financial systems, as mentioned by the Bank for International Settlements, remain neutral only as long as the rule-makers are neutral. When money becomes a political variable, it loses its informational function.
The economy, understood as a process of continuous learning, requires a low-noise communication channel. We should not ask if a new form of money will arrive—it is already here in gold, code, and law. The question is whether we can maintain it as a clock of truth or if we will allow it to become a tool of manipulation. Only a measure that does not lie allows a community to build a future based on trust rather than top-down coercion.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF