Skip to main content

Proposal of a New Monetary Architecture

· 3 min read
Viktor Winschel
Viktor Winschel
OiC.OS

We have added a new page on Monetary Architecture. It connects our Money Theory to the historical experience of interest-rate regimes — from compound interest and debt relief in antiquity to modern central-bank policy and the misalignment between fixed lending rates and real project risk.

The page is available in two formats:

  • Podcast — listen to the full speech on the page (English audio)
  • Slide deck (PDF) — the presentation as a downloadable deck

Why this matters​

Classical interest compensates the lender in a rigid way, largely independent of whether the financed project succeeds or fails. That mismatch shows up again and again in history — in debt crises, in shifts of regime when policy rates move, and in the social cost of guaranteed returns on money while borrowers carry the downside alone.

Our axiomatic money theory starts from quadruple-entry invariance and cash as the terminal object of debt relations. Monetary Architecture asks what a financial order would look like if risk were shared explicitly — through pools and success-dependent mechanisms rather than a one-sided interest contract.

The new page is the bridge: theory on one side, four millennia of institutional experience on the other, and a concrete proposal for a more stable architecture in between.

Endogenous interest and the central bank​

The historical experience over the centuries is consistent with our finding of an endogenous interest-rate theory. The central bank's task is not to artificially restrict liquidity provision as an unjustified lever for steering the business cycle. Liquidity should follow the needs of the contracts to be cleared and then settled — that is, the demand for cash as the terminal means of performance.

In our framework the interest rate is endogenously derivable. It is not a policy dial for macroeconomic fine-tuning; it is a measure of risk. Lending rates are insurance premia on investment — compensation for bearing uncertainty that is realised through write-offs in a pool, not a guaranteed rent on money regardless of outcome. Deposits are insured on the same logic: the system mutualises loss, rather than pretending that fixed nominal returns can be promised without regard to solvency.

Central banks should therefore stop acting as if they controlled inflation and the cycle by rationing reserves and chasing a single policy rate. They do not control inflation in the Friedman sense. Inflation is not a purely monetary phenomenon. It is driven by input prices — labour wages, resources, and real estate — reflected through the valuation algebra of a labour- and risk-divided economy. Monetary policy that treats every price movement as a liquidity problem misidentifies the mechanism and invites the overreach we have lived through in one interest-rate regime after another.

The historical slide through regimes — and the podcast on Monetary Architecture — makes that visible in plain language. The theory in Money Theory states the structure; the new page shows why a different architecture follows from it.