<p>Money will always be used for exchanges between nations. As a universal equivalent it will still be the best commodity for nation-to-nation exchanges and for measuring debts and credits between nations too. 
Besides using alternative open source equivalents, such as cryptocurrencies, how would national banks manage to regulate inflation rates? This certainly is a critical point. Bitcoin for instance is a finite source of exchange: if it were to become a universal equivalent, virtually it would infinitely increase in its value, since the volume of the market exchange gets bigger and bigger.  Other cryptocurrencies tried solving this creating non finite sources, yet this still implies a arbitrary growth of the volume of available currency.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T00:11:59.073Z
Good point about cryptocurrencies, my question is more about the physical money. I understand we still need money and currencies but what's preventing us to go 100% electronic?
juanp_1982
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T10:51:16.497Z
Money needs to be tracked for it to be managed with electronic devices.
Mirko Aveta
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T20:02:23.837Z
2018-09-18T20:02:23.837Z
Mirko Aveta
<p>There's no real reason to do so...
Sweden, for example, is bearly usibg physical money at all</p>

<p>The question can be looked at in a broader sense, examining old technologies working in parallel with newer</p>

<p>At the end of the day, the last end-user, should abandon the old tech, for the regulator (in tgis case) to switch it off</p>

<p>sms (or 2g cell networks in general) are a good example</p>

<p>Evantually, the only barrier not to impose using debit cards (which unlike crypto-currency are quite common), is the potential damage for the economy from physical money users.</p>

<p>Regulation can encourage or incentivize traders to move to debit cards, using taxes, fees or subsidies, then when the physical money usage drops, stop generating physical money, with minimal damage</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T20:40:12.967Z
2018-09-19T20:40:12.967Z
Guy Louzon
<p>Privacy would be a big issue. Making all payments on-line would mean that all payments will be recorded and could be traced. Even in anonymous systems like bitcoin, it would be easier to trace payments then with physical currency.</p>

<p>You can argue that law-abiding citizens don't need to be afraid - but thats not the point. There are certainly many many things that are not illegal, but nevertheless you won't be happy if they went public. That's the point of privacy.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T20:49:54.783Z
2018-09-19T20:49:54.783Z
MikiRaven
<p>this is more a theoretical question, nowadays with Internet, Debit/Credit cards and Cryptocurrencies, why should we keep printing/making more physical money? </p>

<p>granted not everybody has access to these technologies, but for the sake of this question, let's say every body does</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T20:17:57.923Z
Presumably what you are asking is whether economies could function more or less as they do now, supporting the same living standards, without the use of notes and coins?
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T00:02:48.573Z
that's correct :-)
juanp_1982
<currency><cryptocurrency>
Can we get rid of banknotes and coins?
juanp_1982
# Can we get rid of banknotes and coins?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-18)

this is more a theoretical question, nowadays with Internet, Debit/Credit cards and Cryptocurrencies, why should we keep printing/making more physical money?

granted not everybody has access to these technologies, but for the sake of this question, let's say every body does

**Tags:** currency, cryptocurrency
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Presumably what you are asking is whether economies could function more or less as they do now, supporting the same living standards, without the use of notes and coins?  
> **username_0**: that's correct :-)  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-09-18. Score: 1

Money will always be used for exchanges between nations. As a universal equivalent it will still be the best commodity for nation-to-nation exchanges and for measuring debts and credits between nations too.
Besides using alternative open source equivalents, such as cryptocurrencies, how would national banks manage to regulate inflation rates? This certainly is a critical point. Bitcoin for instance is a finite source of exchange: if it were to become a universal equivalent, virtually it would infinitely increase in its value, since the volume of the market exchange gets bigger and bigger. Other cryptocurrencies tried solving this creating non finite sources, yet this still implies a arbitrary growth of the volume of available currency.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Good point about cryptocurrencies, my question is more about the physical money. I understand we still need money and currencies but what's preventing us to go 100% electronic?  
> **username_2**: Money needs to be tracked for it to be managed with electronic devices.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-09-19. Score: 0

There's no real reason to do so...
Sweden, for example, is bearly usibg physical money at all

The question can be looked at in a broader sense, examining old technologies working in parallel with newer

At the end of the day, the last end-user, should abandon the old tech, for the regulator (in tgis case) to switch it off

sms (or 2g cell networks in general) are a good example

Evantually, the only barrier not to impose using debit cards (which unlike crypto-currency are quite common), is the potential damage for the economy from physical money users.

Regulation can encourage or incentivize traders to move to debit cards, using taxes, fees or subsidies, then when the physical money usage drops, stop generating physical money, with minimal damage


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-09-19. Score: 0

Privacy would be a big issue. Making all payments on-line would mean that all payments will be recorded and could be traced. Even in anonymous systems like bitcoin, it would be easier to trace payments then with physical currency.

You can argue that law-abiding citizens don't need to be afraid - but thats not the point. There are certainly many many things that are not illegal, but nevertheless you won't be happy if they went public. That's the point of privacy.


---

