Anonymous question

There is no consensus on this issue.

There are hardcore supporters of returning to the gold standard with 100% reserves. The arguments of this camp were well articulated by Javier Vernón Cortés (de Soto) in the book “Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles”. In short: there are time deposits, where a person deposits money for a specific term, and the bank has the right to invest it wherever it deems necessary, paying interest for this; and then there are demand deposits, where a person deposits money for safekeeping, retaining the right to withdraw it at any moment—in this case, the person should pay for the convenient service, and the bank has no right to do anything with such deposits other than store them. If demand deposits are lent by the bank to someone as a loan, then this is fraud, and divine wrath shall descend upon the bank owners. Thus, based on this strictly legal approach, supporters of the gold standard demand the return of monetary gold circulation, as well as gold-backed banknotes and gold-backed settlement accounts—then the credit expansion carried out by central banks will end, and humanity will have a single deflationary currency, as it did for a relatively short time in the 19th century, and developed quite well.

There are supporters of free banking. They argue that the main thing is to abolish central banks and overall regulation of the banking sector; let the banks decide for themselves what money to emit and how to back it, and then let the market decide which currencies are actually more convenient for people. This idea was defended in slightly different forms by Friedrich Hayek in the book “The Denationalization of Money,” and David Friedman also touched upon this theme in “The Machinery of Freedom” (although he does not belong to the AES). The forecasts of free banking supporters also differ slightly. Some argue that everything will eventually come back to the same gold standard with 100% reserves, because those who want to defraud will quickly find that their reserves begin to melt as trust in their currency is lost. Others say that 100% reserves are not needed by anyone, and if a currency offers convenience of settlement and reasonable emission rates, then no one will worry about bank runs.

Finally, there are the prophets of hyper-bitcoinization, among whom I mention Saifedean Ammous and his book “The Bitcoin Standard.” He argues that due to the gradual growth of the network effect, as well as the stock-to-flow ratio, Bitcoin will become the global measure of value. Further, again, there are options. The first—there will be nothing but Bitcoin, the great and luminous, except that it will operate in different protocol layers according to several different rules. The second option—alternative means of payment will persist, but the basis of their value will be backing by Bitcoin reserves. The reserves might be 100%, or they might not. The main argument in favor of this particular scenario is that here, no one is abolishing central banks by any decrees; they will supposedly wither away on their own.