Values in Programmable Money: Embedding Human Values in Digital Currency

[owocki]

One-sentence TLDR:
Programmable money, like Ethereum, enables embedding diverse human values directly into monetary systems, reshaping economics, governance, and society.

One-paragraph TLDR:
Programmable money transforms currency from a passive exchange tool into an active carrier of ethical, social, political, environmental, and cultural values, allowing us to explicitly encode our collective intentions into monetary systems.

Projects like Gitcoin (public goods funding), KlimaDAO (environmental impact), and GoodDollar (universal basic income) already demonstrate practical implementations. Stakeholders—including individuals, communities, corporations, and governments—each face unique opportunities and challenges as values-driven currencies become mainstream, potentially reshaping economic policies, social equity, and governance structures.

Key tensions like algorithmic governance versus human oversight, value fragmentation, programmable inequality, and surveillance will significantly influence adoption pathways. The most likely future scenario is a pluralistic coexistence of specialized value-driven currencies alongside mainstream programmable money, gradually normalizing the integration of social and ethical considerations into our everyday economic interactions.

Values in Programmable Money: Embedding Human Values in Digital Currency

Philosophical and Economic Dimensions of Value-Encoded Money

Programmable money – exemplified by platforms like Ethereum – challenges the notion of money as a “neutral” medium. Traditionally, money is seen as a unit of account and exchange divorced from moral or social goals. However, philosophers and economists have long noted that money is also a social contract, not merely a commodity. With smart contracts, we can now explicitly encode rules and conditions into currency itself, effectively baking human values and policies into how money circulates. This opens a design space where currencies could foster equitable and socially responsible behavior rather than just facilitate value exchange. In other words, digital tokens “could be tools for societal transformation, embedding values like community, care, and environmental stewardship into economic exchanges”.

Embedding values in money raises fundamental questions: Whose values and who decides? It touches ethics (fairness, equity), economics (incentives, externalities), and politics (governance of monetary rules). Unlike traditional fiat money which governments influence only at a macro level, programmable money allows fine-grained control: one can specify that a coin self-destructs if not spent (demurrage), or cannot be used for certain purposes, or automatically directs a portion of each transaction to a public fund. This blurs lines between economic policy and software. It also revives historical experiments (like local currencies with expiration to spur spending) on a global, digital scale.

Economically, encoding values means moving beyond the doctrine of money neutrality. For example, a cryptocurrency might be coded to reward sustainable behavior or tax negative externalities. This aligns with theories of internalizing external costs: e.g. a token could incorporate a carbon fee each time it’s spent on fossil fuels. In effect, money becomes an active policy instrument. The benefit is clear – money can incentivize positive social/environmental outcomes automatically. But there are economic trade-offs: fragmentation of value (if every community uses its own value-laden token, the economy could splinter), and loss of liquidity or efficiency if too many constraints impede free exchange. We must balance the social contract aspect of money with its role as a lubricant of commerce.

Another dimension is how algorithmic governance intersects with human values. If monetary rules are automated, we must encode ethics into code (“code is law”). This raises technical and moral questions: Can we translate complex values (fairness, justice) into objective code? Who oversees or updates those algorithms? The philosophy of “value-sensitive design” is relevant – technologists are actively researching how to design cryptoeconomic systems that embed values like sustainability, fairness, and resilience. For instance, researchers have proposed frameworks like “Finance 4.0” for creating cryptocurrencies that address commons dilemmas and sustainability, showing that distributed ledger technology can incentivize pro-social behaviors by design.

In summary, programmable money makes explicit something implicit: money has always embodied trust and social agreement, but now we can program the terms of that agreement. This empowers new economic models – from currencies that promote altruism to those that enforce compliance – and forces us to confront deep philosophical questions about what values our monetary system should serve.

Real-World Projects Embedding Values into Money

Despite being an emerging field, there are already numerous projects and experiments that illustrate how ethical, social, political, environmental, religious, and cultural values can be encoded in monetary systems. Table 1 provides an overview of key domains of human values and real-world implementations in each:

Table 1: Values-Driven Currency Examples Across Domains

Domain & Value Focus	Example Projects / Mechanisms	How Values Are Encoded into Money
Social Equity & Basic Needs	GoodDollar (UBI) – A crypto UBI system distributing small daily incomes;Circles UBI – Personal tokens in a mutual credit network.	Universal Basic Income: GoodDollar’s G$ token is distributed as free daily income to anyone with a wallet, funded by DeFi yield from supporters. This encodes the value of economic equality – over 220,000 people across 181 countries joined to receive “free money” as a public good. Circles UBI encodes trust networks: each person’s currency is only accepted by those who trust them, promoting local reciprocity and social cohesion.
Public Goods & Community	Gitcoin Grants (Quadratic Funding) – Crowdfunding public goods with matching;CityCoins (MiamiCoin) – City-specific token funding municipal projects.	Democratic Community Funding: Gitcoin’s quadratic funding mechanism matches community donations to open-source projects; small contributions from many donors unlock larger pool matches, prioritizing broad participation in deciding funding. This encodes values of pluralism and decentralization in philanthropy. CityCoins like MiamiCoin embed a civic value: 30% of every MiamiCoin mined is automatically donated to the city’s treasury, raising ~$7 million for Miami in just a few months. The token’s design aligns monetary incentives with local public good – citizens and speculators support the city by using the coin.
Environmental Sustainability	KlimaDAO – Tokenized carbon credit reserve currency;Regen Network – Eco-credit tokens for regenerative agriculture.	Internalizing Environmental Values: KlimaDAO’s KLIMA token is backed by real carbon offsets; every token represents at least one tonne of CO₂ sequestered. By late 2021, KlimaDAO had facilitated the offset of 15 million tons of carbon (equivalent to 3+ million cars) by leveraging market incentives to drive carbon credit purchases. This effectively encodes climate action into a currency – using KLIMA implicitly funds carbon reduction. Regen Network similarly issues eco-tokens for verified environmental services (like carbon sequestration or soil health improvement), turning ecological value into monetary value. These projects embed the ethical principle of stewardship into monetary design, rewarding behaviors that help the planet.
Religious & Ethical Values	Islamic Coin (Haqq) – Sharia-compliant cryptocurrency;(Other examples: Faith-based community tokens)	Charity and Compliance: Islamic Coin is designed around Islamic financial principles – notably, each time new coins are minted, 10% of the issuance is automatically deposited into a charitable trust (Evergreen DAO) for community philanthropy. This encodes the religious value of Zakat (almsgiving) directly into the currency’s tokenomics. The coin also avoids interest (riba) and invests in Islam-compliant projects, aligning monetary function with religious ethics. More broadly, religious communities are exploring tokens that uphold their values (e.g. no alcohol/gambling use, or supporting charity), effectively creating money that doubles as a moral statement of faith.
Governance & Political	DAOs with Conditional Treasury – e.g. UkraineDAO for war relief;CBDCs with Spending Rules – Central bank digital currencies under pilot.	Programmable Governance: Many Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have treasuries governed by token holders who vote on funding proposals, encoding democratic governance into financial flows. For example, UkraineDAO raised crypto funds for humanitarian relief in Ukraine, with smart contracts ensuring funds go to specified causes. On the state level, governments are eyeing CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) that can embed policy directly. A CBDC could be programmed so that government-distributed money (for welfare or stimulus) can only be spent on essentials or cannot be used for “antisocial” purposes (like gambling or luxury goods). China’s digital yuan pilots have reportedly tested expiration dates on stimulus funds to ensure they are spent rather than saved, and some analysts note that using smart contracts to restrict certain expenditures is feasible – albeit a form of state paternalism. These political uses encode governance values (or political agendas) into money itself, whether to promote public welfare or to strengthen control over economic behavior.

Conditional transfers are another mechanism gaining traction. These are payments that only execute if certain conditions are met – essentially encoding an “if/then” value logic into money. For instance, a charitable donation might be set up to release to a relief agency only when a hurricane of category 4+ hits a region (using an oracle for weather data). This ensures funds go exactly toward the intended value (disaster relief) at the right time. Similarly, social programs can use conditional transfers to promote desired outcomes: a pilot in Brazil and elsewhere have explored digital vouchers for families that unlock only when children attend school or get vaccinations (mirroring conditional cash transfer programs, but automated). While not all these use blockchain, the concept is enhanced by smart contracts, which can enforce such conditions transparently.

In the private sector, corporations are also implementing value-driven tokens. For example, some retail and tech companies use reward tokens for sustainable actions – Alibaba’s Ant Forest initiative (not blockchain-based) gave users green points for reducing their carbon footprint, which translated into real trees planted. This concept could easily be tokenized: e.g. a “carbon coin” reward by your bank for using public transport that you can spend on eco-friendly products. We are also seeing supply-chain tokens that ensure fair trade: a coffee supply blockchain token might carry data about fair wages paid to farmers, giving it a form of ethical “tag” that could even influence its spending (perhaps premium tokens if beans are ethical). These real examples and prototypes illustrate that encoding values into money is not theoretical – it’s already happening across various domains.

Stakeholder Participation and Impact

The move toward values-driven programmable money involves a diverse set of stakeholders – individuals, communities, corporations, and governments – each playing different roles and facing different impacts. Below we survey how each group is participating in or affected by these developments:

• Individuals: At the individual level, people are experimenting with and benefiting from value-laden currencies. Early adopters include users of UBI tokens, local community currencies, and participants in cause-related ICOs/airdrops. For example, hundreds of thousands of individuals in developing countries now receive small daily incomes through GoodDollar’s crypto UBI, directly improving their livelihoods and introducing them to digital currency. Participants in Gitcoin Grants or similar platforms are everyday people deciding which public goods get funding – effectively ordinary citizens become philanthropists and decision-makers in resource allocation by virtue of holding and spending these tokens. On the flip side, individuals also face the consequences of programmed constraints: a person receiving a programmable welfare payment might find their money only works at certain stores or on approved items, limiting personal choice. Similarly, privacy-conscious users worry that if governments issue money with tracking and rules, their every transaction could be watched or controlled. Nevertheless, a growing cohort of individuals (often younger and tech-savvy) is embracing these new monies as a way to align their finances with their values – whether that means holding a carbon-negative coin to support climate action, or joining a social token community that reflects their identity and beliefs.

• Communities and DAOs: Communities – ranging from informal grassroots groups to formalized DAOs – are arguably the pioneers in this space. Communities are creating their own currencies or tokens to reinforce shared values and goals. This can be geographic communities (like cities or local economies) or interest-based communities (like an artist collective, a fandom, or an activist group). The CityCoins example shows a city government working with a crypto community to fund local projects. In smaller communities, we see experiments like community reward tokens for volunteering, or local complementary currencies moved onto blockchain for transparency. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations allow online communities to pool funds (a treasury) and make collective decisions aligned with their mission – for instance, a climate-action DAO votes to spend its funds on planting trees or lobbying for policy changes. These community currencies increase stakeholder engagement: members feel a sense of ownership and agency when they literally hold the token of their community’s values. It also affects communities by possibly increasing solidarity (everyone using the same local token and abiding by its rules), though it can create insular economies. Nonetheless, communities from indigenous groups to hacker collectives are leveraging programmable money to assert their values independently of traditional institutions, creating micro-economies that reflect their cultural or social priorities.

• Corporations and Investors: Corporate actors approach programmable money both as an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, companies are issuing tokens (or using existing ones) to promote brand values and customer loyalty. A company with strong ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) commitments might integrate a carbon offset token in its operations – for example, by purchasing tokenized carbon credits (like those from KlimaDAO) to neutralize its footprint. Some corporations participate in impact token initiatives: for instance, tech companies funding open-source development via Gitcoin (Microsoft and others have contributed to Gitcoin grant rounds, indirectly participating in values-driven funding of public goods). Financial firms are exploring green bonds and sustainable finance on blockchain, where the bond’s interest or principal might be tied to achieving carbon reduction targets. On the other hand, corporations see potential in “programmable” business currency – imagine corporate scrip that ensures employee bonuses are used for professional development, or supply chain payments that auto-execute only when goods meet certain ethical standards. Large payment companies and banks are also engaged with central banks in designing CBDCs that balance regulatory compliance with user needs. For corporations, a key impact is competitive advantage or public goodwill: those who adopt values-driven currency early can bolster their image (e.g. a retailer that accepts and perhaps rewards customers with a biodiversity coin for buying sustainable products). However, corporates are cautious about public reception – if a company pays employees in a token that restricts usage, it may backfire. Many are also wary of regulatory uncertainty. Overall, the private sector is likely to incorporate programmable value features first in constrained environments (reward programs, private consortia, internal currencies) before we see fully corporate-issued “ethical money” at large.

• Governments and Institutions: Governments are central players, since defining and regulating money is a core state function. We see a spectrum of involvement globally. Some local governments (municipal level) are innovative – as noted, Miami and New York engaged with CityCoins to generate city revenue without raising taxes. National governments are primarily focused on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Many central banks are researching or piloting CBDCs, and programmability is often touted as a feature. Governments are interested in embedding policy goals: for example, a CBDC could automatically collect taxes on each transaction or prevent use of funds for illicit activities. Officials have noted that smart contracts could, for instance, block a CBDC from funding “antisocial habits” like gambling or drug purchases. This suggests a future where public money comes with embedded law – “government in the code”. Authoritarian-leaning governments might use this for surveillance and control (e.g. turning off a dissident’s ability to transact, or tying money to a social credit score). Democratic governments are more cautious: adoption will depend on public trust. Indeed, trust is highlighted as critical for CBDC success – if citizens fear Orwellian control or loss of privacy, they will resist. Thus, some central banks have vowed any CBDC would preserve privacy and not be overly restrictive, to maintain acceptability. Beyond CBDCs, governments also are stakeholders as regulators: they will shape how private and community initiatives proceed (through laws on cryptocurrency, charity tokens, securities regulation for social-impact tokens, etc.). Another institutional player are NGOs and transnationals: organizations like the World Bank and IMF see potential in programmable money for financial inclusion and efficient aid delivery, but also warn of risks like fragmentation of the monetary system. In summary, governments stand to gain powerful new tools for economic policy via programmable money – but with that comes responsibility and new tensions with citizens over how those tools are used.

[owocki]

Plausible Futures and Tensions in a Values-Driven Monetary Landscape

Looking ahead, the proliferation of values-driven programmable money could lead to a variety of future scenarios. Many are promising, but each comes with inherent tensions. Here we conduct a foresight analysis of some plausible futures and the frictions or dilemmas they entail:

• Value Fragmentation: One risk is a future of highly fragmented currencies, where every community or interest group uses its own token embodying its particular values. We might have an environment token, a privacy coin, a religious coin, a feminist coin – a plethora of micro-currencies. In a positive light, this is a pluralistic value market: people can choose to transact in the currency that aligns with their principles, creating a rich tapestry of economies. It could foster freedom and innovation, as no single monetary policy fits all value systems. However, fragmentation poses serious challenges. Money relies on network effects – the more universally accepted, the more useful it is. If value-fragmentation goes too far, trade and communication between groups may suffer (“I don’t accept your coin because it doesn’t allow buying meat, only my coin does”). We could see exchange frictions and mistrust between value-siloed economies. It might also entrench echo chambers: communities only trade within themselves using their value-token, reducing cross-cultural interaction. A balance may emerge where a few broad currencies serve as base (perhaps a neutral global coin or major CBDCs), and many niche tokens float on top for specific purposes, convertible via exchanges. This pluralism acknowledges that different people prioritize different values – but managing interoperability and preventing economic balkanization will be key.

• Algorithmic Governance vs. Human Oversight: As more monetary rules get encoded, we head toward algorithmic governance of economic life. This means decisions that were once political or personal could be made by code – for example, whether a transaction is allowed, or who gets how much UBI this month might be determined by algorithm. The upside is consistency and transparency: rules are applied uniformly, without bias or corruption (assuming the code itself is impartial). It can also enable scale – a global carbon tax could be enforced on millions of transactions automatically if coded into a widely used digital currency. But the tension here is the loss of flexibility, mercy, and democratic deliberation. Algorithms lack the nuance of human judgment; they can’t consider special circumstances unless those are anticipated and coded in. There’s a risk of “governance by algorithm” where citizens feel controlled by unaccountable code. For instance, if your money won’t work to buy a beer because you exceeded some health quota this month, you might justifiably resent that rule – even if it was democratically decided, the immediate agent denying you is a machine. Governance might also become technocratic, dominated by those who can write or understand the code. This future raises the importance of inclusive, transparent governance processes for setting the rules in the first place (perhaps new institutions will be needed to oversee algorithmic policies, akin to open-source governance boards). We may also see hybrid models: algorithms handle routine enforcement, but humans provide oversight, appeals, or emergency intervention for edge cases. A major tension will be ensuring that as we gain efficiency and consistency, we do not lose empathy and adaptability in our economic systems.

• Programmable Inequality: While programmable money can be used to reduce inequality (e.g. UBI, progressive tax logic in transactions), it could also exacerbate inequality or create new forms of it if misused. One concern is that those who control the programming (be it governments, big tech, or consortiums) might hard-code advantages for themselves or their allies. Imagine a future where the wealthy literally have a different class of money than the poor: for instance, a government could issue “social assistance dollars” that expire quickly and can only buy certain items for welfare recipients, while the affluent use unconstrained dollars or even earn interest on their CBDC. This would formalize a kind of economic caste system – inequality not just of quantity of money, but of quality of money. Additionally, algorithms might unintentionally reinforce biases. If an AI algorithm allocates micro-loans from a decentralized pool, and it’s trained on biased data, it might favor certain groups over others, translating social inequalities into code. Access to programmable money infrastructure could also widen inequality: those with tech access and literacy can fully participate in the new token economies, whereas marginalized or older populations might be left with fewer options (a digital divide issue). “Programmable inequality” also refers to unequal ability to negotiate around rules – savvy users might find loopholes or use multiple currencies to their advantage, while others are stuck with constraints. This tension suggests we must be vigilant: values-driven systems must be designed with inclusivity in mind, and perhaps programmable safeguards (like caps on how much advantage one can gain, or ensuring baseline services are provided to all). If done right, programmable money can be a tool to reduce inequality (as GoodDollar and similar projects aim to) rather than deepen it, but it will require conscious effort and likely iterative adjustments to the code as we learn of unintended disparities.

• Surveillance and Privacy: A frequently cited tension is between values of security/compliance vs. privacy/freedom. Programmable money can be a panopticon: every transaction can be recorded on a ledger, and rules can require identity or purpose to be attached to money. Governments and some companies will love this for preventing crime, ensuring taxes are paid, and guiding spending. Law-abiding citizens also value safety and might accept some monitoring if it stops fraud or misuse of funds. However, there is a dark side – financial surveillance can become a tool of oppression. If a government can see every cent you spend and can freeze or reclaim money that goes to disapproved activities or groups, individual liberties might erode. China’s social credit system is an oft-cited example: one could imagine integration with digital yuan where if your social credit score is low, your money literally won’t work for luxury purchases or travel. Even in liberal democracies, agencies might be tempted by the rich data flow CBDCs could provide, or to programmatically block certain transactions (for example, automatically blocking any donation to a blacklisted foreign organization). Striking a balance between transparency and privacy will be crucial. Technologically, solutions like zero-knowledge proofs might allow some attributes of transactions to be checked (compliance with rules) without revealing all details to all parties. Some central banks, like the ECB, are exploring tiered privacy – small transactions might remain private (like cash), whereas large ones are monitored for illicit activity. The future could range from a dystopia of pervasive financial surveillance to a more utopian vision of personal data sovereignty (perhaps individuals controlling what aspects of their transaction history to reveal). The tension is clear: the more we encode surveillance and control as “values” for security or societal protection, the more we risk undermining the values of freedom, privacy, and dissent that are also fundamental to many societies.

• Pluralistic Value Markets: In a future with multiple value-driven currencies, we might see the emergence of markets where different values themselves are traded or exchanged. This is a bit philosophical – how do we exchange “1 unit of climate impact” for “1 unit of social impact”? Yet, with tokenization, it’s plausible: carbon credits already form markets, and we could envision markets for “impact tokens” (e.g. a token for feeding one hungry family, a token for one hour of volunteer work, etc.). Such markets could allow capital to flow into social/environmental causes in new ways – an investor could divest from pure profit assets into a portfolio of impact tokens that yield a blend of financial and moral return. This pluralism could also empower local or cultural value systems to have their own micro-economies, as mentioned. The tension here is somewhat conceptual: can we really put a price on values without undermining them? Some critics might argue that turning values into tradeable tokens commodifies virtues like charity or community. There’s also the risk of value arbitrage – if one community undervalues a particular token (say a biodiversity token) and another overvalues it, speculators might exploit this, profiting in money by trading moral tokens, which feels ethically dubious. Additionally, a pluralistic system requires some interoperability – likely via exchange platforms or cross-chain bridges. Those become critical infrastructure, and if they are dominated by a few players, it could recentralize power (the opposite of the decentralization ethos). Despite these tensions, a pluralistic value economy also holds promise for resilience: just as biodiversity in nature creates a more resilient ecosystem, a diversity of currency systems might buffer against a single point of failure in the global economy. It could localize shocks (a collapse of one token due to its policy failure might not tank the whole economy). The coming years will test how these parallel value-markets develop and whether a healthy “financial ecology” can form, or whether it becomes chaotic and exploitative.

These scenarios often intertwine. For example, a highly surveilled system might prevent some forms of fragmentation (since the state enforces one system), whereas a highly fragmented system might evolve to protect privacy by keeping communities small and tight-knit. The key tensions revolve around freedom vs. control, unity vs. plurality, and equality vs. stratification. Each society will have to negotiate these as it introduces programmable money, ideally via inclusive public discourse.

Likely Outcomes and Adoption Pathways

Considering current trends, the most likely outcomes in the medium term will be hybrid approaches rather than extreme all-or-nothing scenarios. Below are some projections for how values-driven programmable money might realistically develop and be adopted:

• Incremental Integration into Mainstream Finance: Rather than overnight replacement of traditional money, we’ll see a gradual infusion of programmability and values into existing systems. Central banks may introduce limited programmability in CBDCs, focusing on broadly acceptable features such as automatic tax collection, interest-bearing accounts, or spending limits on government aid (features that have clear policy rationale). They are likely to avoid heavy-handed moral programming initially, to ensure public acceptance. For example, a central bank might roll out a digital currency that has an opt-in feature for “smart budgeting” – allowing users to partition funds for certain uses – rather than imposing hard restrictions by fiat. This path builds comfort and infrastructure for programmable money with relatively low risk features (essentially making money smarter and more efficient without making it feel alien or authoritarian).

• Success of Niche Value Currencies that Inspire Imitation: We are likely to see a few flagship successes among the niche currencies – projects that achieve enough scale or impact to get global attention. Gitcoin’s success in funding open-source software (over $35 million to date for public goods) is one such example in the philanthropy space. If Gitcoin’s model continues to thrive, it could be adopted by governments or large NGOs for distributing grants in a more democratic way, thus crossing over into mainstream use. Similarly, if an environmental token like KlimaDAO demonstrates that it can drive significant carbon reductions, governments or international bodies might integrate that model into carbon markets or climate policy (e.g. a country could require companies to hold a certain number of tokenized offsets per ton of emissions). These “proof-of-concept” communities essentially do R&D for the broader society. Corporations and governments watch these experiments, and the successful elements may be co-opted or scaled up via public-private partnerships. One can imagine future “impact tokens” launched by coalitions of NGOs and governments to tackle specific goals (SDGs), learning from today’s grassroots projects.

• Adoption via Corporate and Fintech Channels: Another likely pathway is through large companies embedding programmable money in their ecosystems, familiarizing millions of users with the concept. For instance, we might see major payment apps or banks offering programmable money features – such as wallets that support multiple token types (loyalty points, carbon credits, community coins) seamlessly. If a tech giant or a coalition (like the failed Libra/Diem project from Facebook) launches a stablecoin with built-in governance or values features, it could accelerate adoption by leveraging an existing user base. While Libra itself didn’t succeed, it spurred central banks to move faster on CBDCs. In the future, a retailer might issue a token that becomes widely used in a certain region or demographic, effectively acting as a quasi-currency (imagine Amazon or Alibaba creating a token that rewards socially responsible spending – if it catches on, others will follow). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) might merge with fintech: companies distributing rebates or benefits in token form that can only be used in certain positive ways. The more people get these tokens in everyday life (as rewards, gifts, or part of loyalty programs), the more normalized the idea of “money with rules” becomes. Importantly, corporations are sensitive to user experience – they will likely implement these features in a user-friendly manner, hiding complexity (“smart” vouchers that feel like normal coupons, etc.). This helps overcome the technical barriers and could lead to widespread use before people even realize they’re using a form of programmable, values-based money.

• Community and Bottom-Up Adoption Continues: In parallel, we will continue to see bottom-up adoption, especially in communities that are underserved by traditional finance. Cryptocurrencies have already seen high uptake in places with unstable currencies or limited banking (e.g. parts of Africa, Latin America). Within those contexts, local groups might adopt a token that encodes trust or mutual aid, because it works better for them than the national currency. For example, a cooperative of farmers might use a token that automatically pays a bonus to members who practice sustainable farming. If it improves their livelihoods, word can spread to neighboring communities. These grassroots adoptions might not become globally dominant, but they provide a safety net and alternative for communities, and serve as a demonstration of how tailoring money to local values (like trust, reciprocity, or resilience) can strengthen social bonds. NGOs and development agencies might actively facilitate such projects (there are already pilots of community currencies on blockchain to aid economic development). Over time, some of these local currencies could federate or interlink, creating networks of trust-based money that operate alongside formal economies. The key outcome here is financial inclusion and empowerment: people who feel left out of or harmed by global capitalism can craft their own micro-economies. This will likely remain a patchwork rather than a unified movement, but it’s an important counterpoint to top-down adoption.

• Policy and Regulatory Evolution: For any of these pathways to succeed, regulations will adapt. A likely scenario is that regulators carve out “sandbox” environments for experimentation with programmable money – recognizing the potential for social good, governments might allow limited trials of, say, a local token for welfare distribution or an impact bond token for investors, under close observation. If these trials prove effective and safe, regulation could broaden. We’re already seeing early steps: some jurisdictions have legal frameworks for DAOs, for tokenized securities, and for pilot CBDCs. In the best case, a forward-looking regulatory approach will provide clarity that values-driven features (like charity deductions in transactions, or built-in AML compliance in tokens) are not only legal but desirable. This could accelerate adoption by reducing uncertainty. Conversely, heavy-handed or poorly informed regulation could stifle innovation (for example, if law treats any conditional money as a restriction of legal tender, it could ban private experiments). The likely outcome is somewhere in between – cautious allowance with guidelines. International standards might emerge, e.g., principles for ethical CBDC design (ensuring privacy, accessibility, and avoidance of discrimination). Multi-stakeholder forums (such as the World Economic Forum or the BIS) are already discussing ethical digital currency frameworks, and these will shape national policies, creating a more coherent path for adoption across countries.

Taking all these together, the most probable near-future (5-10 years) is one where programmable, values-infused money coexists with traditional money, rather than replacing it entirely. We may pay our taxes or receive stimulus in a government digital currency that has some smart features, while also holding a wallet of specialized tokens for various communities and causes we care about. Infrastructure will develop to make swapping between these forms easy – so if you need to convert your carbon credits to dollars or vice versa, you can do so smoothly, much like currency exchange today. Most people may not even interact directly with the underlying smart contracts; they’ll use intuitive apps that manage the complexity.

Longer-term adoption (10+ years) could see some convergence: if certain value-encoded currencies prove vastly superior for society, they could gain widespread adoption. For instance, if a global “green coin” significantly accelerates climate action and is stable and trusted, it might be adopted as a second global reserve currency alongside (or even replacing) a major fiat. Or, multiple national governments might interlink their digital currencies for social and environmental goals (imagine an agreement that every cross-border transaction carries an automatic micro-donation to a global public goods fund – it could be adopted by treaty). These more transformative outcomes depend on political will and the lessons learned in the coming years.

In terms of adoption pathways, it’s helpful to think of push vs. pull factors:

• Pull (demand-side): People and communities seek out these new forms because they solve problems (financial access, aligning money with morals, funding commons, etc.). This creates grassroots demand that pulls more innovation into the space.

• Push (supply-side): Institutions – be it startups, NGOs, or states – push out new monetary products with desirable features (maybe a CBDC that’s super convenient or a token that comes with perks), nudging users into the new paradigm.

Most likely, we’ll see a combination. For example, a government might push a CBDC, but to ensure adoption it will incorporate features that are demanded by citizens (like privacy or the ability to support local businesses). Likewise, community initiatives that gain popularity might be pulled into formal recognition (a local token might get officially recognized as complementary currency).

One likely outcome is that some values-driven features become normalized expectations in any currency. Just as today one might expect a credible currency to have low inflation, tomorrow people might expect a currency to, say, contribute to public goods or be environmentally neutral. If multiple alternatives exist and one clearly demonstrates a social benefit, public pressure could mount on mainstream systems to adopt similar values. In this sense, values-driven programmable money could act as a competitive pressure on traditional money to “up its game” in serving society.

Conclusion

The design space of programmable money is ushering in a paradigm where currencies are no longer passive vessels of value, but active embodiments of our collective intentions. We are witnessing the early experiments – from climate coins to community tokens – that translate ethical, social, political, environmental, and cultural values into code and coin. This comprehensive exploration shows a landscape brimming with innovation: money that funds open-source code, money that fights climate change, money that enforces religious principles, money that empowers local communities.

As with any powerful technology, there are divergent paths ahead. We could end up with a more equitable, transparent monetary ecosystem that democratically aligns with human values, or we could see new forms of control, division, and inequality if these tools are misused. The likely trajectory in the near term is a cautious but steady integration of value-programmable features into both new and existing monetary systems – feeling our way toward what works and what doesn’t. Each stakeholder – individuals, communities, corporations, governments – will have to remain engaged in shaping these tools, to ensure that the encoded values truly reflect the enacted values we want in society.

One thing is certain: the conversation around money is forever changed. No longer will we ask only “how stable is this currency, how fast, how convenient?” but also “what values does this currency carry, whom does it empower, what behaviors does it encourage or discourage?” Money has always been a social technology as much as an economic one; programmable money makes this explicit. In the coming decade, the most successful currencies may be those that manage to harmonize plurality and unity – enabling a rainbow of human values to flourish, while still knitting together a global economic fabric that benefits all. It is a grand experiment in collective values articulation, with code as the canvas and money as the medium. The outcomes and adoption pathways will depend on our wisdom in balancing innovation with inclusivity, and ideals with practicality. The opportunity is to reimagine money as a tool for human values – and by all indications, that journey has only just begun.

Sources:

1. Marrucho, J. (2022). Unspoken limitations of programmable money on Ethereum… – Medium (on money as commodity vs social contract)

2. O’Dwyer, R. (2023). Tokens: The Future of Money – summarized by Blinkist (on embedding community, care, environmental stewardship in currency)

3. Ballandies, M., Dapp, M., & Pournaras, E. (2021). Finance 4.0: Design Principles for a Value-Sensitive Cryptoeconomic System – ECIS Conference (on incentivizing sustainable behavior via cryptoeconomic design)

4. GoodDollar (2021). July Update from the GoodDollar Community – GoodDollar Blog (on 220k members using GoodDollar UBI globally)

5. Gitcoin (2022). Gitcoin Grants – Quadratic Funding for the World – Gitcoin Blog (on $20M+ funded for public goods via quadratic funding)

6. Washington Post (30 Sep 2021). Crypto tax: ‘MiamiCoin’ has made the city $7 million so far (on CityCoins allocating 30% of mining to city treasury)

7. KlimaDAO (2022). What is KlimaDAO? A Deep Dive. – Medium (on KlimaDAO offsetting 15 million tonnes of carbon via tokenized carbon credits)

8. CoinMarketCap (2023). Islamic Coin (ISLM) – (on Islamic Coin’s 10% of each issuance going to charity, Sharia-compliant design)

9. Avgouleas, E. (2024). Critical evaluation of CBDCs: payments’ final frontier? – Capital Markets Law Journal, 19(2) (on using smart contracts in CBDC to block “antisocial” spending, and the trust/privacy considerations)

[kronosapiens]

Would be curious your feedback on this: The Sacred Machine - by Daniel Kronovet - Community Systems

Similar themes (embedding values in socio-technical systems), but a slightly different framing.