About
About the Author
The person behind the paper, the conviction that drove it, and a transparent account of how it was made.
Fairmoney World
Independent Researcher & Monetary Reform Advocate
Biography
This paper began as a private frustration and became a public argument. The frustration was simple: every monetary reform proposal I encountered either defended the existing order with minor adjustments or proposed a revolutionary replacement that required global consensus no one was going to provide. Neither seemed honest about the problem.
The argument that emerged from that frustration is not a policy brief from an institution. It is the work of an independent researcher who spent several years reading the history of monetary systems, the literature on complex adaptive systems, and the case studies of the precedents cited in the paper. The bibliography is not decorative. Every source was read.
I am not an economist by training. I am someone who became convinced that the monetary question is too important to leave to economists alone—and that the tools needed to think about it clearly are available to anyone willing to do the reading. The paper is my attempt to do that thinking in public, with sources, so that others can check the work.
The Conviction Behind the Work
We are more alike than different. The differences between nations, cultures, and economic systems should not bring us to destruction—they should give us opportunities to help each other. A monetary order that treats difference as a threat to be managed is one that will eventually weaponize that difference. A monetary order built on the recognition that diversity is a source of resilience, not a problem to be solved, is one that might actually last.
That conviction is not naive. The paper does not assume that powerful actors will voluntarily surrender advantage. It assumes that architecture matters—that a system designed to make cooperation more attractive than defection will produce more cooperation than one that assumes defection and tries to punish it. The six modules are an attempt to build that architecture.
Transparent AI Use
AI Collaboration Disclosure
This paper was written in collaboration with Lumo, an AI assistant developed by Proton AI. The collaboration was substantive: Lumo helped structure arguments, identify gaps in reasoning, draft and revise prose, and organize the bibliography.
The intellectual positions in the paper are mine. The research direction, the selection of historical cases, the framing of the six modules, and the conviction statement above reflect my own thinking developed over several years. Lumo was a tool for making that thinking more rigorous and more readable—not a source of the positions themselves.
I disclose this because I believe transparency about AI collaboration is both ethically required and practically useful. Readers deserve to know how a document was made. And the disclosure is an invitation: if you find an argument that seems machine-generated rather than genuinely reasoned, push back. The arguments should be able to stand on their own.
Verified Sources
Citation Verification Statement
Every citation in the working paper was checked against its source. Where a source was unavailable for direct verification, this is noted. The bibliography contains only works that were read, not works that were cited by other works I read. If you find a citation error—a misquotation, a misattribution, or a claim that does not appear in the cited source—please contact me. I will correct it publicly.
Contact
Get in Touch
For press inquiries, academic correspondence, or substantive objections to the paper's arguments:
X (Twitter)
@fairmoneyworldResponse time
I read everything. I respond to substantive questions and press inquiries within 48 hours.
Read the work
The argument is in the paper.
Biography is context. The substance is in the working paper and the six-module architecture.