Telematic currency and market strategy (mtemuk.pdf). - Centre d ...

Especially here the present money system is at fault: because there is a lack of the proper documentation.
In the money systems which are in force, instruments-documents are coins and scriptural instruments, as we
know. But all these instruments are of a nature essentially anti-documentary. Rather than documenting, we
might say they conceal reality, because of the following reasons:
1. Mobility: they do not show only one elemental mercantile operation, as they are used for lots of
exchanges: they circulate in the market indefinitely, playing their instrumental role in an unknown
number of elemental exchanges. Because of this permanent mobility, it is impossible to establish
exactly each of the elemental exchange operations effected.
2. Uniformity: present monetary instruments, especially paper money on which all others are based, are
identical to each other. Paper money changes only with respect to the number of money units
represented, but gives no information with respect to special details of each elemental exchange
effected. It does not say what has been exchanged, nor how, or when... This uniformity hinders any
attempt to an exact analysis of the complex and flowing mercantile reality.
3. Anonymity: finally, most of present day monetary instruments are anonymous, that means they do no
say who are the agents in a mercantile exchange or in a monetary act whatsoever. Therefore, they do
not allow the attribution of responsibility to the monetary agents, especially if we are talking of paper
money. From this point of view, paper money is not only un-statistical and un-analytical, but also and
first of all a-social, as it allows to effect all sorts of monetary operations without leaving any
personalizing and compelling evidence in the face of Justice.
Even if the three above-mentioned properties can be rightly applied only to paper money and coins, it must
not be forgotten that scriptural bank instruments are also essentially un-documentary, even if at first sight it
might not seem so.
As a matter of fact a signature on a cheque, a name, a number of account... are, to-day, identifying items. But
the documentation provided is very partial, for several reasons:
a. in the first place, many cheques are «to the bearer», and therefore they only identify one of the agents
of the monetary exchange.
b. in the second place, the information given is usually considered as a «bank secret» reserved to
privileged groups and sectors: it is never made public.
c. finally, because of the secondary nature of the bank-scriptural documents, they can always be
converted into completely anonymous bank notes, by simply asking to do so, and therefore the
identifying documentary mark is lost.
Therefore, bank scriptural documents are potentially documentary; but they will not be fully such while they
exist together and are subsidiary to a system of anonymous and undocumentary monetary instruments.
The money system in its whole will not be a fully documentary and informative system until an identifying
instrument becomes the only legal and real monetary instrument, completed in every single elemental
operation and thoroughly documentary.
6. Conclusions.
One of the minimal conclusions, necessary to any metric system, that of possessing elemental, thorough and
identifying measuring documents, is not fulfilled by present day money systems.
In consequence, it cannot be a good metric system. We therefore need to create a monetary instrument in a
position to be a reliable guaranty of an exact measurement, and fully documentary of the exchange value of all
and each of the exchanged goods in a given market.
This new instrument will not be very different from present scriptural-bank instruments; but it will
fulfill the traits which are now only potential, and will eliminate its metric-documentary
34