Centuries-old monetary debates shape crypto and CBDC architectures
A Swiss National Bank working paper maps digital tokens, including cryptocurrencies, CBDCs, and stablecoins, onto three historical monetary controversies. Author Romain Baeriswyl shows how classical debates over origin, credit, and double-spending govern modern monetary architectures.
From Roman law to digital ledgers
The study categorises monetary instruments along three foundational debates: origin (natural law versus state theory), nature (economic good versus credit claim), and double-spending.
Cryptocurrencies and precious metals align with natural law and economic goods without double-spending, whereas state-issued fiat and central bank digital currencies represent state-backed economic goods.
Commercial bank deposits and fractional-reserve stablecoins embody credit claims that depend on the double-spending of base money established in Anglo-Saxon common law.
Baeriswyl demonstrates that digital tokens do not introduce novel economic categories but simply translate longstanding theoretical divisions into software protocols.
The deposit substitution dilemma
The paper notes that unrestricted retail CBDC access would challenge fractional-reserve banking by offering a credit-risk-free alternative to commercial bank deposits.
Because holding money as an economic good eliminates counterparty risk, central banks must impose holding caps to prevent massive deposit flight and unintended transfers of credit risk onto central bank balance sheets.
Experimental findings indicate that individuals tend to hoard risk-free CBDCs while spending bank deposits, mirroring Gresham’s law.
Ancient questions in modern code
Baeriswyl delivers a sharp conceptual framework that cuts through prevailing fintech hype.
By anchoring digital tokens in Roman law and monetary history, the paper demonstrates that new technology cannot erase fundamental trade-offs.
For central bankers, this perspective provides essential clarity for upcoming CBDC architectural choices.