Anyone serious about replacing traditional money will have to start by understanding its nature: How could anything so fundamentally flawed not only last, but thrive for so long? Money, after all, isn’t the creation of a higher power, but a man-made disaster – and as a species, we are using it by our own choice. Our money system collapses on a regular basis, but after cleaning up the mess, all we can think of is rebuilding it again in pretty much the same way it was before. There have been alternative currencies for decades, but on the surface of the traditional financial system, they have hardly left a scratch.

Taking all this into account, it should be obvious that ridding us of traditional money is no simple feat. Things could be easier if money was contrary to our nature – but apparently, that is not the case: In many ways, money seems like a perfect fit, and the misery it brings is by no means a contradiction. Humans are highly attracted to money, and it seems like our love for it can only be troubled when the beloved abandons us (as it’s for unrequited love that people do strange things).

It should be similarly obvious that you can’t substitute something unattractive and anemic for an international smash hit that everyone is hooked on (just like to most, you can’t pitch raw celery to replace savory junk food – even if it might do us good). Money isn’t just a source of pleasure – it also satisfies our baser human instincts. Using it neither requires moral transcendency nor altruism or foresight, and not least, money is a source of reassurance. Insofar, the history of money is a story of success – from the perspective of money, that is. To come up with a serious alternative, we would be well-advised to take a close look at this success story and learn from it: Money works in a viral, almost physiological kind of way, and there is hardly anyone who is fully immune to it. Chances are that a full-fledged money replacement would have to attach itself to the same human receptors – it would have to beat the system at its own game.

To have any impact at all, new money must be able to compete – it needs be on a par with the old money and attract those whose hearts haven’t been broken by the old system yet. Without reaching out to the bulk of money users, it is hardly possible to get the type of participation that is needed for a functioning financial system. The trick isn’t getting a couple of people to use alternative money – it’s getting lots people to abandon their traditional currencies which is the hard part. The true value of a new type of money can therefore be measured as a product of innovation and proliferation – few changes met with broad acceptance can go much further than a theoretical revolution sounding great on paper, but which can never come to pass on a larger scale.

To rule out future abuse once and for all, the right to issue money must be democratized and cease to be the privilege of a few. It can only be regarded as a bizarre irony of history that article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates a “right to work”, while the right to create a medium of exchange, which is needed to exercise the former in a meaningful and self-serving kind of way, was simply “forgotten”. Future generations will likely look back in disbelief on these barbaric ages in which the power to issue money was a carefully guarded prerogative and which were blighted with oppression and destruction. We can only hope that this day lies in the not-too-distant future.