(2018) Apparently the paper is https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12169, but it's

(2018) Apparently the paper is https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12169, but it's not open access. According to the press release and abstract, the paper analyzes Bitcoin under a framework proposed by J. G. Fichte, an important philosopher who was a follower of Immanuel Kant. This seems like a worthwhile contribution, although we've seen that (1) a lot of thought on economics has happened since Fichte, and (2) there's so little consensus in economics, either on positive or on normative claims. I'm not optimistic that many people would be intuitively persuaded by Fichte's claims about what currencies are for. (But I appreciate the concept of discussing and debating what currencies are for.) Here is a long-post-Fichte claim (I don't know whether Scharding considers it, because of the not-open-access part) that currencies can work better, for some specific notions of "better", if they're regional rather than worldwide (also a position that Scharding apparently attributes to Fichte): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area That doesn't quite fit my intuitions, but maybe that means I should read some of Mundell's work (for which he won the Nobel Prize!).