Money is a medium of exchange in society. You give money and receive food, stocks and bonds, services, or foreign currency. There are various forms of monetary transactions, including electronic transfers, checks, and physical cash. Have you ever wondered in what form we actually measure our wealth? In many countries, this makes no difference. In others, capital controls limit the movement of money.
Under such conditions, real importance and value belong to anything that can be transferred without restrictions. In short, if you met someone living in a country with strict capital controls, even on electronic transactions, and wanted to understand the extent of their wealth, you might ask, “How many kilos are you worth?” or “How many banknotes and coins do you possess?”
The true value of money can generally be defined not as a number, but as the ability to use and distribute it freely. If you own money that you cannot access or spend, it is as if you do not truly have it. Of course, it should be noted that capital controls in modern economies are usually temporary and applied under exceptional circumstances. Under normal economic conditions, a complete loss of money is unlikely.
The interaction between state issued money and electronic currencies is a matter of concern to me. The widespread acceptance of electronic currencies has outweighed cautious evaluation. Many people choose to invest in such currencies believing that their value will increase in the near future. The perceived risk of this investment appears small, given the rapid rise of electronic currencies. However, an important question remains. What is their contribution to a state’s economy?
It is often overlooked that the state operates using its own currency. Market prosperity supports the development and evolution of public and private sectors alike. It becomes problematic for the market to support state growth when the two operate using different currencies. This situation resembles an engine running simultaneously on two different fuels. I firmly believe that the risk of devaluing state currency is significantly increased by growing public confidence in electronic currencies.
In particular, the widespread use of electronic currencies reduces the market share of non virtual currencies. At the same time, the value of electronic currencies rises due to increased demand and competitive pressure against traditional currencies. As a result, state currencies may lose value in global markets, leaving the public sector unable to function efficiently, either with a weakened national currency or with an expensive electronic one.
Moreover, even the broad acceptance of an electronic currency cannot respond indefinitely to the changing needs of the market. Electronic currencies possess limited characteristics and are not supported by state mechanisms capable of adapting to social and economic demands. When a national market requires liquidity, the state can issue money to support it. With an immaterial global currency, however, the needs of a smaller economy cannot override the priorities of the global system in order to determine pricing according to local conditions.
For this reason, I believe electronic currencies should be approached in a manner similar to stock market investments. Investors do not know how stock prices will evolve, but they expect volatility. As in stock exchanges, a prudent investor should never risk their entire fortune. Careful and measured financial decisions protect entrepreneurs during difficult economic periods.
