> Alternatives, especially private alternatives readily available to citizens, will increasingly be viewed as the enemy. Trust is the central component of the

> Alternatives, especially private alternatives readily available to citizens, will increasingly be viewed as the enemy. Trust is the central component of the monetary system, you must trust the notes and systems used to exchange money. Creating a framework that brings this trust has been a central component since the invention of money[0], thru issuing that money and having the king or whatever passed as authority sign the coins. This is why issuing forged money has also always been such as an important crime - because that was forging the signature of the king/queen/emperor/minister of treasury. So it's not that surprising to see that guaranteeing that trust and trying to prevent the issuance of alternative currencies is a role that governments attributed themselves in that framework. One question is whether it actually is their role to say "you should not trust anyone else's signature" - aka your enemy reference The more important one to me is, accepting this is now a thing, whether they should instead regulate what issuing organizations need to provide as guarantees under that signature. I personally think so, because I don't trust FB one bit, and I'd love them to be bound to a set of rules [0] Sapiens- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23692271-sapiens https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23692271-sapiens?