[throwawayjava]

> A tricky part of this would be how to balance letting the network have control over itself and letting the government have some special degree of input on ‘monetary policy’. It’s certainly ok for the government to have some, but I think the network needs to be mostly in charge (e.g., the government couldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily inflate the currency when it wanted to).

This is a partially direct democracy (for monetary policy) using digital voting with no paper trail! Unless there are crap load of formal methods backing this, it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

(Also, if this is the problem to be solved, why don't we just pass a constitutional amendment requiring a referendum for certain changes to monetary policy...)

> The government can likely create a lot of de novo wealth for its citizens in the process.

The thing that always confuses me: where is the fundamental value creation? I don't see much other than maybe saving on some inefficiencies in the current monetary/financial system. But that's not "de novo wealth"; that's "financial engineering".

How does a state-backed cryptocurrency generate "de novo wealth"?