Thank you for your comment and suggestion of something I overlooked (because I was actually unaware of it). I did add material the essay that includes your important point. Also: that limit is not explicit, it’s planned, and today bitcoin forked, producing a new process in its likeness.
I will admit the position I take in the essay is extreme. But it is also incomplete. Part of what money ‘is’ is stipulated by definition, but I suspect this is the smaller part, like words, whose identity is determined only at the time they are used, by context, relationship, intention, bias, and attention. Is it possible that money is neutral? It’s a philosophical question, but I think it’s malformed because it presumes there is such a thing as abstract, decontexted money, which it seems to me there cannot be, except conceptually.
All money is money in context, and the context and relationships involved will determine both its values, costs and identity.
But it’s a great question, and I think we have to keep it alive rather than try to simply answer it. I mean that we must continually reinvent and examine the associated histories, our histories, perspectives and objectives… around it… hopefully together.
