This seemed to me a key point of this article: "...those public goods^ which, through hundreds of years of government, business, and democratic processes, we’v

This seemed to me a key point of this article: "...those public goods^ which, through hundreds of years of government, business, and democratic processes, we’ve agreed are priorities and values our finance and currency systems should reflect." I think your opinion on this statement colours how you think about the rest of the topic. How do you see this process, and what it produced. Are we, via Hegelian pendulum swings, Smithian invisible hands or democratically aggregated will... are we producing a better money system all the time. Incorporating good ideas. Reacting to changing needs and wants. Keeping everything relatively bug free. Or... if you fall on the other side of this... do you see this process as a mature game, hijacked democracy, corrupted capitalism or bougie conspiracy. I think most everything else traces back to this disagreement. If you're in the mature game camp, you do not accept that the way money works is at core determined by rational trade-offs between anonymity and governance or more mischievous dynamic. Interestingly, this explicitly does not divide along any possible left-right spectrum. It's more of a conservative-radical divide. Your radicalism can equally be of a marxist, schumpeterian or modern variety. ^The Public Goods he lists are tax compliance, anti-money laundering^^, stability and market integrity, and consumer & investor protection. ^^Anti Money Laundering deserves it's own little rant. AML has little to do with money laundering in 2018. It is (legally) a euphemism for a broad set of controls that (if successful) will make it enforceably illegal to accept a robber's money with a positive responsibility.