Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.27727

Sovereign Grassroots Currencies: A CBDC Architecture for Credit and Monetary Policy (Full Version)

Abstract

A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is central-bank money in digital form, held by the public. Leading designs have two limitations: conversion from bank deposits into CBDC can accelerate deposit flight, requiring safeguards; the CBDC stays outside credit creation and monetary-policy operations. Here we present a CBDC architecture that overcomes these limitations, based on grassroots currencies. It has three components: (1) Money: sovereign grassroots coins, which are digital debts of one unit of fiat currency issued by the central bank, constituting a direct CBDC; (2) Credit and Liquidity: non-sovereign grassroots coins, which are digital debts of one unit of the same fiat currency, redeemable at par, that can be issued by any person, natural or legal - adding credit; and (3) Interest: grassroots bonds, sovereign and non-sovereign - adding maturity, and with it interest, standard banking instruments, and the central bank's instruments of monetary policy. The central bank can therefore lend, absorb liquidity, set its rates and buy and sell securities in the coins and bonds the public holds, choosing the counterparties and terms of its credit operations, and without converting bank deposits into newly issued central bank money on demand. We prove that one unit of the fiat currency is the only arbitrage-free price of a grassroots coin whose issuer meets presentations, and argue that the central bank's lending rate and the rate on its own bonds bound what its counterparties pay and accept on comparable terms; the central bank can choose to deal with any counterparty, not just banks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ehud Shapiro. 2026-09-23. Sovereign Grassroots Currencies: A CBDC Architecture for Credit and Monetary Policy (Full Version). https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27727

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Critical Mathematical Economics and Progressive Computer Science

The aim of this article is to present elements and discuss the potential of a research program at the intersection between mathematics and heterodox economics, which we call Criticial Mathematical Economics (CME). We propose to focus on the mathematical and model-theoretic foundations of controversies in economic policy, and aim at providing an entrance to the literature as an invitation to mathematicians that are potentially interested in such a project. From our point of view, mathematics has been partly misused in mainstream economics to justify `unregulated markets'. We identify two key parts of CME, which leads to a natural structure of this article: The first part focusses on an analysis and critique of mathematical models used in mainstream economics, like e.g. the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) in Macroeconomics and the so-called ``Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu''-Theorems. The aim of the second part is to improve and extend heterodox models using ingredients from modern mathematics and computer science, a method with strong relation to Complexity Economics. We exemplify this idea by describing how methods from Non-Linear Dynamics have been used in Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics', and also discuss (Pseudo-) Goodwin cycles and possible Micro- and Mesofoundations. Finally, we outline in which areas a collaboration between mathematicians and heterodox economists could be most promising, and discuss both existing projects in such a direction as well as areas where new models for policy advice are most needed. In an outlook, we discuss the role of (ecological) data, AI and the need for what we call Progressive Computer Science.

econ.GN↗

Don't Fake It If You Can't Make It: Driver Misconduct in Last-Mile Delivery

In the last two decades, last-mile delivery (LMD) firms have seen immense growth fueled by the success of e-commerce, leading to faster and cheaper deliveries. Operating on thin margins, LMD firms strive for successful first-time deliveries to avoid the financial and reputational costs of reattempts. Delivery Agents (DAs) are integral to LMD efficiency, influencing customer experience, delivery success, and productivity. However, most LMD performance enhancement research focuses on process, technology, and incentives, which presume workers will conform to procedures and monitoring tools will function flawlessly. Nevertheless, in practice, DAs deviate from expected behaviors, i.e., indulge in misconduct, negatively affecting delivery efficiency, often resulting in returned parcels. One of the major misconducts is fake remarked deliveries, wherein DAs intentionally do not deliver the parcels and provide a fake reason for it. For instance, even without reaching a delivery address, a DA remarks 'customer unavailable' and records a delivery failure. In this study, we collaborated with a leading Indian LMD firm and, using instrumental variable regression, find that such misconduct leads to a spillover productivity loss. This effect reduces the next day's successful deliveries by 1.60% and first-time-right deliveries by 1.86%. We discuss misconduct's correlation with factors such as task complexity and offer novel insights into how opportunistic circumstances can influence worker behavior.

econ.GN↗

Decomposing Wage Stagnation: Employment Reallocation, Wage Structure,and Demographics

Japan's average log real hourly wages rose until the mid-1990s, declined through the mid-2010s, and partially recovered thereafter. This paper decomposes these changes over 1980-2024 into four components: demographic change across worker types, changes in relative employment shares across job types, changes in relative log wages across job types, and unweighted mean wage growth. The framework combines a shift-share decomposition across worker types with an extension of the Olley-Pakes decomposition across job types within worker types, separating employment reallocation from changes in relative wage structure. The four components vary across periods. Before 1996, unweighted mean wage growth and changes in relative wage structure contribute positively, while demographic change and employment reallocation contribute negatively. During 1996-2014, all four components are negative. After 2014, the recovery mainly reflects unweighted mean wage growth. Employment reallocation and changes in relative wage structure contribute differently across dimensions of job type.

econ.GN↗