━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ THE ALBERTA BUCK - COMMON OBJECTIONS (V1.3) Perry Kundert ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 2025-10-09 08:00:00 Sophisticated economic objections to the Alberta Buck correctly identify catastrophic risks in commodity-backed /bonds/ – procyclical currency mismatch, commodity volatility overwhelming stability benefits, constitutional barriers to provincial currency issuance, and market liquidity problems. These analyses are rigorous and historically grounded. However, they systematically misapply this framework by assuming BUCKs involve /issuing debt denominated in commodity units/ rather than /issuing wealth-backed tokens to permanently retire existing debt/. This distinction is mechanical and eliminates every objection's central concern. This article examines each major criticism in detail: the Argentine-style currency mismatch scenario, gold standard volatility comparisons, Section 91 constitutional constraints, RWA tokenization jurisdiction, market-making complexity, Venezuela's Petro failure, regulatory gap arguments, and monetary policy interference concerns. Each objection is stated in its strongest form, its apparent validity acknowledged, and then rebutted by demonstrating how the wealth monetization architecture differs fundamentally from commodity-backed debt issuance. The synthesis reveals BUCKs as pure wealth representation – not currency creation – with a 30-year fiscal advantage of $325 billion over conventional bond financing. ([PDF], [Text]) Table of Contents ───────────────── 1. Procyclical Debt Service Creates Catastrophic Currency Mismatch .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. Why This Objection Seems Compelling .. 3. The Error: Conflating Debt Denomination with Wealth Monetization .. 4. Comparing Three Financing Models 2. Commodity Volatility Overwhelms Currency Stability Benefits .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. Why This Objection Seems Compelling .. 3. The Rebuttal: Natural Hedging When Costs and Currency Move Together 3. Constitutional Constraints Prevent Genuine Sovereignty .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. Why This Objection Seems Compelling .. 3. The Rebuttal: Fiscal Sovereignty vs. Monetary Sovereignty 4. Why RWA Tokenization Cannot Be "Currency Issuance" .. 1. Activity 1: Currency Issuance (Section 91 Federal Jurisdiction) .. 2. Activity 2: Wealth Tokenization (Section 92 Provincial/Private Jurisdiction) 5. The "If It Quacks Like a Duck" Objection 6. The Scale Objection 7. Market Liquidity Problems Make BUCKs Prohibitively Expensive .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. Why This Objection Seems Compelling .. 3. The Rebuttal: Bond Market Liquidity is Irrelevant When Not Issuing Bonds 8. The Gold Standard Historical Comparison .. 1. Venezuela's Petro: The Wrong Lesson 9. The "Quasi-Currency" Regulatory Gap Argument .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. The Rebuttal 10. The "Provincial Sanction Equals Currency" Argument .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. The Rebuttal 11. The "Monetary Policy Interference" Argument .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. The Rebuttal 12. The "International Monetary Obligations" Argument .. 1. The Counter-Argument .. 2. The Rebuttal 13. Synthesis: The Alberta Buck as Pure Wealth Representation 14. Summary: The Grave Cost Of Failing To Act .. 1. Ongoing CAD$ Debt Financing .. 2. Wealth-Backed Money Creation .. 3. The Real Cost of Borrowing: A 30-Year Analysis .. 4. The Compound Advantage Of Retiring Bond Debt .. 5. The Choice: Wealth Monetization vs. Debt Creation [PDF] [Text] 1 Procyclical Debt Service Creates Catastrophic Currency Mismatch ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ A fundamental principle of sub-sovereign debt management is avoiding currency mismatch between revenue sources and debt obligations. When Alberta issues bonds denominated in Canadian dollars, the province earns revenues primarily in CAD (even resource revenues, which are USD-priced but CAD-collected through taxation). This natural matching means CAD depreciation has minimal impact on debt servicing capacity. 1.1 The Counter-Argument ──────────────────────── If Alberta issued bonds denominated in BUCKs (a commodity basket unit), a catastrophic currency mismatch would emerge during commodity price collapses. Consider the mechanics: • Alberta's oil revenues fall by ~$13 billion when oil drops from $100 to $30/barrel • Natural gas revenues fall by ~$2 billion when gas drops from $5.00 to $2.00/GJ • Combined oil and gas revenue decline: ~$15 billion • However, since Energy (oil + gas) comprises only ~10% of the BUCK basket value, BUCK values decline by ~7% (not 70%) when oil+gas prices fall by 70% • Even with this modest 7% BUCK decline, debt service denominated in BUCKs becomes more expensive in real purchasing power terms during the exact moment when provincial revenues collapse • This creates a procyclical doom loop: falling revenues + rising debt costs = fiscal catastrophe Historical evidence strongly supports this concern. During the 2014-2016 oil crash, Alberta's resource revenues collapsed from $8.9 billion to $1.2 billion – falling below student tuition revenues for the first time in history. If debt service costs had simultaneously tripled in real terms, the province would have faced impossible choices between defaulting on bondholders or slashing essential services by 40-50%. The currency mismatch problem is precisely what devastated Argentine provinces in 2001-2002, where peso devaluation from 1:1 to 4:1 against the dollar tripled the real burden of USD-denominated provincial bonds, triggering widespread defaults. Buenos Aires Province, Córdoba, and other wealthy jurisdictions faced fiscal catastrophe not from revenue collapse alone, but from the combination of falling revenues and exploding debt service costs denominated in foreign currency. Commodity-backed bonds would replicate this disaster. When Alberta most needs borrowing capacity – during commodity busts when revenues collapse – BUCK values would plummet, making new bond issuance prohibitively expensive or impossible. This procyclical dynamic is exactly opposite to sound fiscal design, which seeks countercyclical or at minimum acyclical debt structures. 1.2 Why This Objection Seems Compelling ─────────────────────────────────────── This analysis is economically rigorous and historically grounded. The Argentine example demonstrates real-world catastrophe from exactly this currency mismatch pattern. The mathematical relationship is undeniable: if debt service is denominated in units whose value moves inversely to provincial fiscal capacity, disaster follows. The objection is particularly compelling because it uses Alberta's own historical volatility against the BUCK proposal. Oil prices ranging from $26.55 to $125 within five years represents 370% volatility – far exceeding currency volatility for any major fiat currency. Tying debt obligations to this volatility appears obviously catastrophic. 1.3 The Error: Conflating Debt Denomination with Wealth Monetization ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, this entire analysis rests on a false premise: *that the BUCK proposal involves issuing bonds denominated in BUCKs*. This is not the BUCK architecture. The Alberta Buck proposal envisions /one-time issuance of BUCKs to permanently retire existing debt/, not rolling refinancing of debt in a commodity-linked denomination. The distinction is mechanical and eliminates the currency mismatch entirely: 1.3.1 *What Critics Assume (Commodity-Backed Bonds):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ 1. Alberta issues 30-year bonds with principal and coupons denominated in BUCKs 2. Must make annual coupon payments in BUCKs regardless of commodity price levels 3. Must repay principal in BUCKs at maturity regardless of fiscal position 4. When oil prices collapse, real cost of debt service explodes while revenues collapse 5. Creates the Argentine scenario: currency mismatch leads to default or fiscal catastrophe 1.3.2 *What BUCK Architecture Actually Proposes (Wealth Monetization):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ 1. Alberta creates BUCKs by attesting provincial assets (resource rights, infrastructure, Crown land) 2. Uses these newly-created BUCKs to permanently pay off and retire existing CAD/USD-denominated bonds 3. No future debt service obligations exist – the debt is /gone/, not refinanced in new currency 4. When commodity prices fluctuate, Alberta's fiscal position reflects revenue changes only 5. No currency mismatch is possible because there is no outstanding debt to service The objection's central concern – BUCK values plummet during commodity busts when the province desperately needs borrowing capacity – simply does not apply when BUCKs eliminate rather than replace debt obligations. After using BUCKs to retire all provincial debt, Alberta would have /zero debt service costs/ consuming $3.2 billion annually, regardless of whether BUCKs trade at premium or discount to their commodity basket value. 1.4 Comparing Three Financing Models ──────────────────────────────────── To make this concrete, consider three scenarios for how Alberta might finance a $10 billion infrastructure project: 1.4.1 *CAD-Denominated Bonds (Current Practice):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ 1. Alberta issues 30-year bonds denominated in CAD$ 2. Must make annual coupon payments in CAD$ regardless of commodity prices 3. Must refinance principal in CAD$ at maturity regardless of fiscal position 4. When oil prices collapse from $100 to $30/barrel, the real cost of debt service increases 5. Refinancing debt becomes more expensive as provincial revenues suffer 1.4.2 *BUCK-Denominated Bonds (False Assumption):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ 1. Alberta issues 30-year bonds denominated in BUCKs 2. Must make annual coupon payments in BUCKs regardless of commodity prices 3. Must repay principal in BUCKs at maturity regardless of fiscal position 4. When oil prices collapse from $100 to $30/barrel, the real cost of debt service triples 5. Creates procyclical doom loop: falling revenues + rising debt costs = fiscal catastrophe 1.4.3 *BUCK Issuance for Debt Retirement (Actual Proposal):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ 1. Alberta creates BUCKs by attesting provincial assets (resource rights, infrastructure, land) 2. Uses these newly-created BUCKs to permanently retire existing CAD/USD-denominated bonds 3. No future debt service obligations exist – debt is /gone/, not refinanced 4. When commodity prices fluctuate, Alberta's fiscal position reflects revenue changes only 5. No currency mismatch possible because there is no outstanding debt to service The critique's central concern – that "BUCK values plummet during commodity busts when the province desperately needs borrowing capacity" – simply does not apply when BUCKs eliminate rather than replace debt obligations. Alberta would have /no debt service costs/ consuming $3.2 billion annually, regardless of whether BUCKs trade at premium or discount to their commodity basket value. 2 Commodity Volatility Overwhelms Currency Stability Benefits ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ A second powerful objection focuses on the extreme volatility of commodity prices compared to fiat currencies. Historical data demonstrates that commodity price volatility exceeds major currency volatility by factors of 5-10x. 2.1 The Counter-Argument ──────────────────────── Research on commodity price dynamics shows: • West Texas Intermediate oil ranged from $26.55 (2016) to $125 (2012): a 370% swing within five years • Wheat prices fluctuate 40-60% annually due to weather-dependent production shocks • Lumber prices vary wildly with construction cycles and trade policies • The coefficient of variation for commodity prices exceeds that of CAD/USD exchange rates by an order of magnitude Historical precedents reinforce this concern. The classical gold standard (1880-1914) delivered near-zero average inflation over 34 years, but the short-term volatility was catastrophic: the coefficient of variation for prices under the gold standard reached 17.0 compared to just 0.88 during the post-1946 fiat currency era – nearly 20 times higher instability. Real output volatility was similarly elevated, with unemployment averaging higher under gold (6.8% vs 5.9% under fiat systems). Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia research confirms that "short-run instability is a fundamental flaw of Commodity money systems." While prices eventually return to steady-state levels under commodity standards, external trade shocks negatively affect money, prices, and output in the short run. The system transmits these shocks across countries sharing the commodity standard, spreading economic distress. For Alberta specifically, this volatility would be amplified because the province's revenue base is already extremely commodity-dependent. Resource revenues ranged from $25.2 billion (33.2% of total revenue) in 2022-23 to just $2.8 billion (6.5% of revenue) in 2015-16. Tying a currency unit to these same volatile commodities would double-down on Alberta's core vulnerability rather than diversifying away from it. A currency backed by oil, gas, wheat, beef, and lumber would experience violent value swings tracking global commodity markets. During simultaneous commodity price collapses (as occurred in 2014-2016 and 2020), BUCK values would crater. This volatility would make economic planning impossible, discourage BUCK adoption, and potentially trigger speculative attacks during periods of price weakness. 2.2 Why This Objection Seems Compelling ─────────────────────────────────────── The historical evidence is overwhelming that single-commodity backing (gold) created extreme volatility and economic instability. The objection logically extends this to a commodity basket, arguing that even diversification across multiple commodities cannot overcome the fundamental problem that /all commodity prices are more volatile than fiat currencies/. The Alberta-specific data is particularly damning: the province already suffers from commodity dependence, so creating a commodity-backed currency appears to amplify the existing problem. Why would Alberta want its /money/ to be as unstable as its /revenues/? 2.3 The Rebuttal: Natural Hedging When Costs and Currency Move Together ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, this objection again assumes BUCKs would function as /debt denomination/ rather than as /internal currency for direct transactions/. The volatility concern matters critically when Alberta owes fixed amounts of BUCKs to external creditors – then BUCK appreciation creates fiscal disaster. But it matters much less when Alberta /uses/ BUCKs to pay for goods and services denominated in the same underlying commodities. The critical insight is that /BUCKs denominate value in the same commodities that underpin Alberta's economy/. When oil, wheat, beef, lumber, and labour costs all decline together during a commodity recession, the real purchasing power of BUCKs increases proportionally – but so does the real cost of producing anything, which also fell. Conversely, when these commodity prices surge during a boom, BUCKs lose purchasing power – but Alberta's resource revenues surge in parallel, naturally hedging the effect. Consider the three financing models again, now focusing on real project costs: 2.3.1 *Scenario A: CAD-Denominated Bonds (Current Practice):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ • Issue $10B in CAD bonds at 4% interest • Annual debt service: $400M in CAD, fixed regardless of oil prices • When WTI falls from $100 to $30/barrel: • Provincial revenue falls by ~$13 billion (from $22B to $9B in resource revenues) • Debt service obligation remains $400M CAD • Real burden increases as % of falling revenues (fiscal stress) 2.3.2 *Scenario B: BUCK-Denominated Bonds (What Critics Assume):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ • Issue $10B equivalent in BUCK bonds at 5% interest • When WTI falls from $100 to $30/barrel: • Provincial revenue falls by ~$13 billion in real commodity-basket terms • BUCK value falls by ~70% relative to pre-crash commodity basket • Debt service cost rises by 333% in commodity-basket terms • *Catastrophic currency mismatch* – exactly what critics describe 2.3.3 *Scenario C: BUCK Creation for Direct Financing (Actual Proposal):* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ • Create $10B in BUCKs by attesting $15B in provincial assets • Use BUCKs directly to pay contractors (who can immediately convert to CAD/USD) • No debt, no interest, no future obligations • When WTI falls from $100 to $30/barrel: • Provincial revenue falls by ~$13 billion • Zero debt service cost (project was funded by wealth monetization, not debt) • Outstanding BUCKs in circulation may fluctuate in value, but Alberta holds no obligation • Natural hedging: as commodity prices that underpin BUCKs fall, so do the material costs of new projects Alberta might undertake The critical insight is that /BUCKs denominate value in the same commodities that underpin Alberta's economy/. When oil, wheat, beef, lumber, and labour costs all decline together during a commodity recession, the real purchasing power of any remaining BUCKs Alberta holds increases proportionally. Conversely, when these commodity prices surge during a boom, BUCKs lose purchasing power – but Alberta's resource revenues surge in parallel, naturally hedging the effect. 2.3.4 Mathematical Illustration: The Natural Hedge ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ Let's model this formally. Consider Alberta's fiscal position under commodity price shocks: The analysis demonstrates three critical findings: 1. *CAD bonds create moderate procyclical stress*: During the 2016 commodity collapse when both oil and natural gas prices plummeted, fixed CAD debt service consumed a dramatically higher percentage of resource revenues versus boom periods – a multi-fold increase in real burden despite fixed nominal cost. 2. *BUCK-denominated bonds would still create problematic procyclical effects*: Even though energy (oil + natural gas) comprises only ~10% of the BUCK basket value, so a 70% energy price collapse produces only a ~7% BUCK decline, this still creates currency mismatch during the worst possible moment. When resource revenues collapse by $15 billion, even modest increases in real debt service costs are problematic. This is /exactly what Alberta must avoid/, and why the BUCK proposal never suggests issuing bonds denominated in BUCKs. 3. *BUCK-financed projects exhibit natural hedging*: The 10% energy weighting in the BUCK basket is crucial – it means BUCK volatility is modest compared to raw commodity prices. When denominating /both assets and costs/ in the same commodity basket, with only 10% exposure to energy price swings, real project costs remain remarkably stable despite energy price volatility. This is the key insight: BUCKs don't create currency mismatch against Alberta's economy; they /eliminate/ it by denominating value in a diversified basket that includes the commodities underpinning provincial fiscal capacity, while maintaining stability through broad diversification. 3 Constitutional Constraints Prevent Genuine Sovereignty ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Canadian constitutional law reserves exclusive federal jurisdiction over currency and coinage (Section 91(14)), banking and paper money issuance (91(15)), bills of exchange (91(18)), and legal tender (91(20)) under the Constitution Act 1867. This federal monopoly means provinces cannot conduct independent monetary policy, set interest rates, manage exchange rates, or serve as lender of last resort regardless of what currency denomination they choose for bonds. Alberta operates within a monetary union by constitutional design, much as Spanish regions operate within the eurozone. The province cannot print money, cannot set the Bank of Canada's policy rate, and cannot create legal tender to discharge debts. These powers are exclusively federal and no bond structure can circumvent this constitutional reality. 3.1 The Counter-Argument ──────────────────────── Therefore, the claim that commodity-backed BUCKs provide "economic sovereignty" is illusory. Whether Alberta issues CAD bonds, USD bonds, or BUCK bonds, the province remains subject to: • Bank of Canada monetary policy set for national economic conditions • Federal banking regulation and payment system oversight • Federal currency controls if ever imposed • Constitutional prohibition on provincial currency issuance The Bank of Canada sets interest rates and conducts monetary policy for Canada's national economy, weighted heavily toward manufacturing-intensive Ontario and Quebec rather than resource-dependent Alberta. When national inflation rises, the BoC raises rates even if Alberta faces recession from commodity collapse. This monetary policy constraint exists regardless of bond denomination – a province cannot escape federal monetary authority by changing what currency its debts are denominated in. The appropriate comparison is not between CAD bonds and hypothetical monetary independence, but between CAD bonds and realistic alternatives within Canada's federal structure. Since all alternatives remain subject to federal monetary authority, the sovereignty benefit claimed for BUCKs appears to be pure rhetoric rather than genuine policy advantage. 3.2 Why This Objection Seems Compelling ─────────────────────────────────────── The constitutional analysis is legally correct. Provinces categorically cannot issue legal tender or conduct monetary policy. No amount of financial engineering can overcome Section 91 of the Constitution Act. The sovereignty critique appears to be a fatal blow to claims that BUCKs provide monetary independence. The Spanish regional comparison is particularly apt. During the 2010-2014 euro crisis, Catalonia, Valencia, and other regions faced severe fiscal contraction because they lacked monetary autonomy within the eurozone. They could not devalue currency, print euros, or adjust monetary conditions when the European Central Bank set policy for all 19 eurozone countries with divergent economic conditions. Alberta's position in Canada's monetary union is structurally identical. 3.3 The Rebuttal: Fiscal Sovereignty vs. Monetary Sovereignty ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This objection conflates two distinct concepts: • *Monetary sovereignty* (federal: control legal tender, set base rates, conduct open market operations) • *Fiscal sovereignty* (provincial: ability to finance operations without external creditors) Alberta cannot and does not seek to usurp federal monetary powers. The Bank of Canada will continue setting monetary policy for the national economy whether Alberta issues CAD bonds, BUCK bonds, or BUCKs directly. But Alberta /can and should/ seek to eliminate unnecessary intermediation costs by directly monetizing wealth rather than borrowing against it at interest. The sovereignty benefit is /fiscal/, not monetary: the ability to finance provincial operations without /paying interest to financial intermediaries/. Consider the mathematical reality: • Alberta currently pays $3.2 billion annually in debt service • Money transferred from provincial taxpayers to bondholders • Over 30 years, a $10 billion bond at 4% costs $22 billion total ($10B principal + $12B interest) The BUCK architecture proposes Alberta can finance $10 billion in infrastructure by: 1. Identifying $15 billion in provincial assets (resource rights, land, infrastructure) 2. Obtaining attestation and insurance on these assets 3. Creating 10 billion BUCKs backed by this wealth 4. Paying contractors directly in BUCKs (convertible to CAD/USD in DeFi pools) 5. Total cost: insurance premiums (~0.5-1% annually) + operational costs 6. /No interest payments to bondholders/ – savings of ~$400M annually, $12B over 30 years The Bank of Canada continues setting monetary policy in both scenarios. Alberta remains within the Canadian monetary union in both scenarios. The constitutional constraints are identical in both scenarios. But in the BUCK scenario, Alberta /stops transferring $3.2 billion annually/ to external creditors. This is fiscal sovereignty: independence from creditor demands and rollover risk, even while operating within a monetary union. The Spanish regions faced catastrophic vulnerability during the euro crisis precisely because they /had debt/. Regions with no debt service obligations would still have faced revenue declines requiring spending cuts – but without the compounding crisis of exploding debt costs and bond market freezes. 4 Why RWA Tokenization Cannot Be "Currency Issuance" ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ The constitutional objection conflates two entirely distinct activities: 4.1 Activity 1: Currency Issuance (Section 91 Federal Jurisdiction) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Currency issuance involves: • A sovereign declaring tokens to be "legal tender" that creditors must accept • The sovereign controlling supply through monetary policy for macroeconomic objectives • The sovereign backing tokens with its taxing power and debt capacity • Tokens circulating with sovereign guarantee and regulatory infrastructure 4.2 Activity 2: Wealth Tokenization (Section 92 Provincial/Private Jurisdiction) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wealth tokenization involves: • Private parties representing their existing assets in transferable digital form • Supply controlled by aggregate attested wealth of participants • Tokens backed by insured private assets with contractual redemption rights • Tokens circulating through voluntary acceptance and market pricing The Alberta Buck is definitionally the second activity. The provincial government does not: • Declare BUCKs legal tender • Conduct monetary policy through BUCK supply manipulation • Guarantee BUCK value with provincial credit • Require any party to accept BUCKs The province merely: • Regulates insurance products that attest asset values (existing provincial authority) • Enforces contracts and property liens (existing provincial authority) • Provides legal framework for property rights (existing provincial authority) • Permits use of distributed ledger technology (no prohibition exists) 5 The "If It Quacks Like a Duck" Objection ══════════════════════════════════════════ Critics might argue: "Regardless of legal form, if BUCKs function as money, they are functionally currency subject to federal jurisdiction." This objection proves too much. Consider: • Canadian Tire money has circulated for 65+ years as a functional medium of exchange • Starbucks card balances exceed $2.4 billion – larger than many banks' deposit base • USDT and USDC process hundreds of billions in transactions monthly • Airline miles are traded, valued, and used as compensation None of these triggered successful federal assertion of currency jurisdiction, despite their clear "monetary" function. The reason: /function does not determine legal categorization/. Gift cards function as money but are regulated as consumer products. Loyalty points function as money but are regulated as contractual obligations. RWA tokens function as money but are regulated as securities, commodities, or property depending on structure. The Alberta Buck's legal structure as an RWA token representing attested wealth determines its jurisdictional treatment, not its functional use as a medium of exchange. 6 The Scale Objection ═════════════════════ Critics might further argue: "Small-scale alternatives are tolerated; a province-wide system would trigger federal intervention." This objection fails for three reasons: 1. *Scale doesn't change legal nature*: If representing gold ownership as a tradeable token is legal for 1 ounce, it remains legal for 1 million ounces. The activity doesn't transform based on volume. 2. *Precedent supports large-scale private money*: ATB Financial has operated for 87 years with provincial deposit guarantees and no CDIC participation – a de facto parallel banking system with $60+ billion in assets. The federal government has not challenged this arrangement despite its obvious scale. 3. *Federal intervention would be constitutionally problematic*: Asserting jurisdiction over RWA tokenization would require the federal government to claim authority over all private property representation – threatening securities, commodity tokens, NFTs, and even traditional negotiable instruments like warehouse receipts. This constitutional overreach would face vigorous challenge. 7 Market Liquidity Problems Make BUCKs Prohibitively Expensive ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ A sophisticated financial markets objection argues that commodity-backed BUCK bonds would face severe liquidity constraints that make them prohibitively expensive compared to conventional CAD bonds. 7.1 The Counter-Argument ──────────────────────── The analysis identifies multiple structural problems: Limited investor base*: The BUCK structure combines three distinct risk factors – provincial credit risk, commodity price exposure, and cryptocurrency settlement technology. Traditional provincial bond investors seek stable cash flows and have limited appetite for commodity volatility. Commodity investors prefer direct futures and options rather than bundled credit instruments. Cryptocurrency investors focus on DeFi and speculative tokens rather than government debt. The intersection of these three investor classes is vanishingly small. Complexity premium*: Exotic bond structures with unusual features trade at 75-150 basis points above comparable conventional bonds due to reduced investor base, analytical difficulty, and operational challenges. Research on corporate bond liquidity shows exotic bonds trade at bid-ask spreads of 30 basis points versus 17 basis points for liquid conventional bonds – a 76% liquidity penalty. For BUCK bonds, spreads would likely reach 100-150 basis points in normal markets, potentially widening to 300-500 basis points during stress periods. Market-making costs*: Dealers making markets in BUCK bonds would require specialized dual expertise in fixed income and commodity derivatives, extensive capital for hedging operations, and technological infrastructure for tokenized trading. The market-maker must simultaneously hedge credit risk and commodity exposure with imperfect basis (since the BUCK basket won't match available futures). This operational complexity means only 2-3 sophisticated dealers would likely commit to making markets versus 20-30 dealers for conventional bonds. Valuation complexity*: Pricing BUCK bonds requires Monte Carlo simulation across multiple commodity price paths, correlation matrices for five commodities, volatility surfaces from options markets, and credit spread dynamics. No standard industry methodology exists, creating model risk where different valuation approaches produce materially different fair values. This restricts the investor base to sophisticated institutions with commodity derivatives expertise. Taking estimates from the high end: BUCK bonds might trade 100-250 basis points wider than CAD bonds. On $10 billion issuance, this represents $100-250 million in additional annual interest costs – money that could otherwise fund healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Over 30 years, these excess costs compound to billions in unnecessary spending. Historical precedents support this concern. Commodity-linked bond issuance surged in 2005-2008, but the 2008 crisis revealed illiquidity problems when investors couldn't sell at reasonable prices. Bid-offer spreads widened to 5-10% of face value and many investors faced total loss when issuing banks failed. The post-crisis market collapsed – commodity-linked issuance fell by 90%+ and remains limited to small specialized issuances. 7.2 Why This Objection Seems Compelling ─────────────────────────────────────── The financial markets analysis is sophisticated and draws on real liquidity data from exotic structured products. The 2008 commodity-linked bond collapse provides concrete evidence that complexity creates catastrophic illiquidity during stress. The bid-ask spread estimates (100-250bp) are grounded in observable market data for similar complex structures. The cost comparison is devastating: paying an extra $100-250 million annually for illiquid BUCK bonds versus liquid CAD bonds appears fiscally irresponsible. Alberta would be sacrificing billions in compounded costs for a theoretical sovereignty benefit that previous objections have already questioned. 7.3 The Rebuttal: Bond Market Liquidity is Irrelevant When Not Issuing Bonds ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, this entire analysis assumes /Alberta would issue bonds denominated in BUCKs/ requiring access to bond markets for regular refinancing. The liquidity concern matters critically /if Alberta needs to rollover BUCK-denominated bonds/ at maturity or issue new BUCK bonds to cover deficits. But the BUCK architecture does not propose issuing bonds denominated in BUCKs. Alberta would issue BUCKs /once/ to /retire/ existing debt. After debt elimination, bond market liquidity becomes irrelevant – such bonds would never exist to be traded. The relevant liquidity question is: /can contractors, suppliers, and provincial employees easily convert BUCKs to CAD/USD[1]? This depends on DeFi pool depth and market-making infrastructure, not bond market liquidity. Current stablecoin markets demonstrate this is tractable: • Tether (USDT) trades $50-100 billion daily volume with 1-3 basis point spreads • Circle USDC trades $5-10 billion daily with similar tight spreads • Even smaller stablecoins trade $100M+ daily with sub-10bp spreads For Alberta's operational needs: • Target: $100-500M daily trading volume (0.1-0.5% of USDT volume) • Supports $20-100M in daily settlements – far exceeding provincial requirements • Requires ~$50-200M in initial DeFi pool depth (similar to mid-tier stablecoins) • Market makers arbitrage BUCK/commodity baskets to maintain peg stability The $10 million R&D program proposed in the BUCK architecture includes $2-3M specifically for market making infrastructure and initial liquidity provision. Once operational, the ~$3.2 billion in annual debt service savings dwarfs these costs by three orders of magnitude. Moreover, /limited bond market liquidity is a feature, not bug/ during the bootstrap phase. It creates friction that discourages provinces from issuing large amounts of BUCK-denominated debt before the system is mature. Alberta should not want easy access to BUCK bond markets; it should want to progressively reduce all debt through wealth monetization. 8 The Gold Standard Historical Comparison ═════════════════════════════════════════ Critics extensively cite gold standard history (1880-1914) to demonstrate that commodity-backed systems create "catastrophic short-term volatility" with coefficient of variation 20x higher than fiat systems. This historical evidence is important but misapplied to the BUCK proposal. The classical gold standard suffered from three structural flaws the BUCK explicitly addresses: 1. *Single commodity backing*: Gold alone experienced supply shocks from mining discoveries/depletions and demand shocks from reserve accumulation/depletion. BUCKs use a diversified basket of Canadian commodities that historically demonstrate lower volatility than individual commodities or even fiat currencies (see BCPI analysis earlier in this document). 2. *Fixed exchange rates*: Countries committed to defend specific gold parities, requiring deflationary adjustment when gold flowed abroad. BUCKs float freely against all currencies – there is no parity to defend, eliminating the deflation/unemployment mechanism that made gold standards politically unsustainable. 3. *Physical redemption requirements*: Gold standards required governments to exchange currency for physical gold on demand, limiting money supply growth and forcing contraction during banking panics. BUCKs have /no redemption requirement/ – they're simply units of account representing fractional commodity basket value, backed by insured wealth but never redeemable for specific commodities. The critics' own analysis acknowledges that Commodity money systems "ensure prices eventually return to steady-state levels" with "near-zero average inflation over 34 years." This long-run price stability is precisely what BUCKs preserve while avoiding the short-run volatility through basket diversification and floating exchange rates. 8.1 Venezuela's Petro: The Wrong Lesson ─────────────────────────────────────── Critics cite Venezuela's failed Petro cryptocurrency as a cautionary tale for commodity-backed government digital currency. The Petro indeed failed spectacularly, generating no meaningful revenue and having no credible redeemability mechanism. But the Petro's failure stemmed from: • Centralized control by a government with no credibility or rule of law • Dubious backing claims (oil fields with no drilling activity, abandoned rigs) • Attempted use as sanctions evasion rather than legitimate monetary innovation • Lack of any independent verification, audit, or market discipline • Top-down imposition rather than voluntary adoption These are not intrinsic flaws of commodity-backed currency – they're flaws of Venezuelan governance that would doom /any/ monetary system. Alberta operates under: • Transparent Canadian legal framework with strong property rights and contract enforcement • Independently audited public finances and real, operating resource projects • No international sanctions or need for sanctions evasion • Established insurance industry that can verify and attest asset values • Voluntary adoption: Albertans choose whether to create BUCKs by pledging assets The comparison is instructive in demonstrating that commodity backing alone guarantees nothing – credible institutions, transparent operations, and voluntary participation are prerequisites. But these prerequisites exist in Alberta and were completely absent in Venezuela. The Petro failed because Venezuela has no institutional capacity; the BUCK can succeed because Alberta does. 9 The "Quasi-Currency" Regulatory Gap Argument ══════════════════════════════════════════════ Even if BUCKs are not legally "currency," they may fall into a regulatory gap that federal authorities could fill through banking or securities regulation. 9.1 The Counter-Argument ──────────────────────── The BUCK might be characterized as: • A "deposit" under banking law • A "security" under securities law • A "derivative" under derivatives regulation • A "payment instrument" under payment system oversight Any of these characterizations would bring federal regulatory authority into play. 9.2 The Rebuttal ──────────────── Each characterization fails on its own terms: Not a "Deposit"*: Banking deposits are liabilities of the deposit-taking institution payable on demand. BUCKs are not liabilities of any institution – they are tokens representing fractional claims on a pool of privately-attested assets. The account holder who mints BUCKs is not depositing funds; they are expressing their own wealth in tokenized form. No institution takes deposits or owes funds to BUCK holders. Not a "Security"*: Securities represent investment contracts with expectation of profits from the efforts of others. BUCKs are commodity tokens with value derived from their commodity-basket definition, not from any issuer's efforts. BUCK holders don't invest capital expecting returns – they monetize existing wealth. This is closer to selling gold than buying stock. Not a "Derivative"*: Derivatives are contracts whose value derives from underlying assets through contractual terms. BUCKs don't reference underlying assets through derivative contracts – they /are/ the representation of underlying assets, like gold certificates or warehouse receipts. Not a "Payment Instrument"* in the regulatory sense: Payment instruments under federal oversight involve clearing systems, systemic risk, and payment finality concerns. BUCKs settle on Ethereum – a decentralized network outside federal payment system oversight. This is equivalent to Bitcoin settlement: outside the conventional payment rails. The BUCK fits most naturally as a *commodity token* or *RWA token*; a category that neither federal nor provincial regulators have comprehensively claimed, and which operates under basic contract and property law. 10 The "Provincial Sanction Equals Currency" Argument ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════ What if Alberta decides to support the legal use of an Alberta Buck? 10.1 The Counter-Argument ───────────────────────── Even if private parties tokenizing their own wealth is permissible, provincial government involvement transforms the nature of the activity. If Alberta endorses BUCK adoption, allows tax payments in BUCKs, creates provincial `BUCK_CREDIT' for public assets, or operates BUCK infrastructure, then the province has effectively "issued currency" through the back door. 10.2 The Rebuttal ───────────────── Provincial endorsement is not issuance*: The province endorsing a private system differs from the province issuing currency. If Alberta promoted use of gold coins, it would not thereby "issue" gold currency. If Alberta accepted Bitcoin for tax payments, it would not thereby create Bitcoin. Acceptance and promotion are not issuance. Tax acceptance is common for non-currency*: Many jurisdictions accept property, services, or alternative payments for tax obligations. Federal acceptance of payment in kind through various programs doesn't transform those items into currency. Provincial acceptance of BUCKs would be accepting commodity-value tokens, not creating currency. Public asset tokenization follows private principles*: If a private citizen can obtain `BUCK_CREDIT' against their home, the province can obtain `BUCK_CREDIT' against Crown land; the legal mechanics are identical. This is the province monetizing its assets, not issuing currency. The distinction is meaningful: currency issuance creates purchasing power from sovereign authority; asset monetization expresses existing wealth in liquid form. Infrastructure operation is ministerial*: Operating or facilitating BUCK infrastructure – Oracle systems, attestation protocols, exchange connectivity – is ministerial activity, like operating a land registry or securities depository. Technical facilitation of private transactions doesn't constitute currency issuance. The province's role would be analogous to operating the Alberta Securities Commission or the Land Titles Office; providing regulatory framework and technical infrastructure for private activity, not creating money. 11 The "Monetary Policy Interference" Argument ══════════════════════════════════════════════ Large scale adoption could change the legal standing of the Alberta Buck. 11.1 The Counter-Argument ───────────────────────── Even if BUCKs are legally distinct from currency, their widespread adoption would interfere with federal monetary policy. If Albertans increasingly transact in BUCKs rather than CAD$, the Bank of Canada loses control over money supply, transmission of interest rate policy, and ability to manage inflation/deflation. This interference could justify federal intervention regardless of BUCK's formal legal status. 11.2 The Rebuttal ───────────────── All alternatives reduce monetary policy transmission*: Every time Canadians hold US dollars, gold, Bitcoin, or even barter rather than CAD$, monetary policy transmission is marginally reduced. This is not illegal – Canadians have always had freedom to hold and transact in alternatives. A popular provincial RWA token is no different than popular cryptocurrency adoption. Monetary policy still affects real economy*: Even if BUCKs became widely adopted, Albertans would still interact with the CAD$ economy: paying federal taxes, trading with other provinces, importing goods. Bank of Canada policy would affect these transactions normally. BUCK adoption doesn't create a hermetically sealed economy. The "interference" would be market choice*: If Albertans prefer BUCKs to CAD$, this reflects rational economic preference for wealth-backed over debt-backed money – not provincial usurpation of federal authority. The federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit citizens from preferring alternative value representations. Federal remedies exist within federal jurisdiction*: If the Bank of Canada finds monetary policy transmission impaired, it can adjust CAD$ policy tools to remain competitive. Federal authorities could offer their own CBDC with attractive features. Competition in value representation isn't constitutional violation. The correct framing: BUCKs represent /market competition/ in value representation, not governmental intrusion on federal authority. The Constitution doesn't grant the federal government monopoly on /all/ value representation: only on legal tender and currency issuance specifically. 12 The "International Monetary Obligations" Argument ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ What if it becomes so popular that it impairs Canada's international obligations? 12.1 The Counter-Argument ───────────────────────── Canada's international monetary obligations – IMF membership, central bank cooperation agreements, banking treaties – may be compromised by a province operating a parallel value system. Federal treaty powers might override provincial initiatives that affect international monetary relations. 12.2 The Rebuttal ───────────────── No treaty prohibits private money alternatives*: International monetary agreements concern sovereign currencies, exchange rates, and central bank coordination. They don't require nations to prohibit private value tokens. The United States (with its massive stablecoin market), Switzerland (with crypto-friendly cantons), and Singapore (with regulated token exchanges) all maintain full IMF membership while permitting extensive private money alternatives. BUCKs don't affect CAD$ international status*: The Canadian dollar's international role depends on federal monetary policy, Canada's economic fundamentals, and market confidence; not on whether Albertans have access to alternative domestic value tokens. Provincial activity doesn't bind federal treaty compliance*: The province's facilitation of private RWA tokenization wouldn't create federal treaty violation. The federal government could simply note that Alberta's system operates under provincial property rights jurisdiction, distinct from federal monetary authority. Paramountcy requires operational conflict*: Federal paramountcy over provincial law requires actual operational conflict; both governments regulating the same activity with contradictory requirements. Since no federal law regulates RWA tokenization of private provincial assets, no paramountcy issue arises. 13 Synthesis: The Alberta Buck as Pure Wealth Representation ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ The objections examined throughout this appendix share a common analytical error: treating the Alberta Buck as though it were an attempt to create a competing currency, and then identifying (correctly) that currency creation is federal jurisdiction. But the BUCK is not a currency. It is a measurement. When you place your gold in a Kinesis vault and receive KAU tokens, those tokens don't represent "new money created by Kinesis." They represent /your gold/, measured in standardized units, made transferable through blockchain infrastructure. You haven't created money; you've made your existing wealth liquid. When you obtain a `BUCK_CREDIT' NFT against your home and mint BUCKs, those BUCKs don't represent "new money created by Alberta." They represent /your home's value/, measured in commodity-basket units, made transferable through Ethereum infrastructure. You haven't created money; you've made your existing wealth liquid. The entire BUCK system is simply infrastructure for Albertans to measure their wealth in stable commodity-basket terms and transfer those value representations as they wish. The aggregate BUCK supply is mathematically bounded by the aggregate attested wealth of all participants; it cannot exceed real wealth, cannot be inflated by government decree, cannot be manipulated for policy objectives. This is the antithesis of currency issuance. Currency issuance creates purchasing power through sovereign authority (delegated to partners who then misrepresent this special privilege as "lending"). Wealth measurement represents pre-existing purchasing power through attestation and insurance. The federal government has jurisdiction over the first activity. But no government, federal or provincial, needs to "authorize" citizens to measure and represent their own wealth. That authority resides with property owners inherently; it is the foundation of contract and property rights that both levels of government are constitutionally bound to protect. The Alberta Buck asks only that the existing legal infrastructure for property rights, contract enforcement, and insurance regulation be applied to a novel technological implementation. Every component has historical precedent: • *Wealth attestation*: Title insurance, property appraisals, commodity grading • *Value tokenization*: Warehouse receipts, gold certificates, registered securities • *Parametric insurance*: Crop insurance, catastrophe bonds, credit default protection • *DeFi exchange*: Commodity futures, precious metal exchanges, cryptocurrency markets The innovation is integration, not creation of new legal concepts. The BUCK combines established mechanisms into a coherent system for private wealth monetization; requiring no new legal authority, no constitutional reinterpretation, no federal permission. Albertans have always had the right to represent their own wealth in transferable form. The Alberta Buck simply makes this ancient right technologically practical at scale. 14 Summary: The Grave Cost Of Failing To Act ════════════════════════════════════════════ Continuing along the present financial trajectory will almost certainly lead to financial ruin. Doing more of something that must fail – just doing it harder – will not lead to success. Let's summarize the results of two approaches to financing Alberta's provincial funding needs; one that assumes continued CAD$ debt financing, and one that leads Alberta out of the ongoing debt trap completely. 14.1 Ongoing CAD$ Debt Financing ──────────────────────────────── • Alberta issues 30-year bonds denominated in CAD$, or other currencies (hedged) • Make annual coupon payments in CAD$ regardless of commodity prices • Refinance principal in CAD$ at maturity regardless of fiscal position • When revenues collapse, the real cost of debt service increases • Refinancing debt becomes more expensive as provincial revenues suffer 14.2 Wealth-Backed Money Creation ───────────────────────────────── • Create BUCKs once by attesting personal or provincial assets • Use BUCKs to permanently retire existing private or public debt • Eliminate all future debt service obligations ($3.2B annually) • No rollover risk because there's no debt to rollover • No bond market access needed after initial debt retirement • Natural hedging: BUCKs move with Alberta's commodity-based economy • Achieve fiscal sovereignty while respecting federal monetary authority A policy recommendation to continue issuing CAD$ bonds hedged to eliminate currency risk is sound /relative to issuing BUCK-denominated bonds/. But it completely ignores the unstated option: /stop issuing bonds entirely/ and finance operations by wealth monetization. 14.3 The Real Cost of Borrowing: A 30-Year Analysis ─────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alberta currently pays approximately $3.2 billion annually in debt service on roughly $80 billion in outstanding debt at an average 4% interest rate. The objections meticulously analyze whether debt should be denominated in CAD or BUCKs, comparing costs down to basis points. But they overlook the first-order question: /why borrow at interest when wealth can be monetized directly?/ Let's examine the true fiscal cost of continuing conventional debt financing versus BUCK wealth monetization over a 30-year horizon: 14.4 The Compound Advantage Of Retiring Bond Debt ───────────────────────────────────────────────── The analysis reveals three critical insights: 14.4.1 *Direct Interest Savings: $33.3 Billion* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ Over 30 years, $80B in traditional bond financing costs $58.8 billion in interest payments. BUCK wealth monetization pays off this $80B bond, and costs $25.5 billion in insurance and operational expenses over the same term. The direct savings: $33.3 billion – substantial, but only the beginning of the story. 14.4.2 *Compound Investment Returns: $211.8 Billion* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ The real transformation occurs when Alberta /invests/ the annual $4.63B principal and interest bond payment savings, rather than simply spending less. This is an apples-to-apples comparison: we've already /established/ that we are prepared to pay this payment for 30 years. Each year, the province saves approximately $3.8B (bond payment minus BUCK costs). Invested at a modest 4% return – the same rate bondholders currently earn on provincial debt – this compounds to $211.8 billion over 30 years. The exact same annual payment, on the exact same $80B financing. 14.4.3 *Total Fiscal Advantage: $325.1 Billion* ╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌ The complete picture: traditional financing costs $138.8B ($80B principal + $58.8B interest) over 30 years with nothing to show at the end except debt freedom. BUCK financing costs $25.5B /and/ generates $211.8B in accumulated investments over 30 years. The net advantage: *$325.1 billion* – more than four times Alberta's current annual budget. This is not speculative financial engineering. It's the mathematical reality of /compound interest working for Alberta instead of against it/. Every dollar currently transferred to bondholders could instead grow in provincial investment accounts, pension funds, or sovereign wealth reserves. The Heritage Savings Trust Fund, currently valued at ~$23 billion, could increase an /additional/ third of a Trillion through this mechanism alone over the next 30 years. 14.5 The Choice: Wealth Monetization vs. Debt Creation ────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Banks monetize customer wealth daily by creating deposits backed by attested collateral (mortgages). Richard Werner's research demonstrates this is credit creation, presently unique to banks[2]. The BUCK architecture extends this principle to provincial private and public wealth: if individual homeowners can create CAD deposits by pledging their house to a bank, why can't Albertans create BUCKs by pledging insured personal property, resource rights, infrastructure, and Crown assets? The answer is: Alberta can. The constitutional analysis confirms provinces have broad authority over property, contracts, and civil rights even while lacking monetary sovereignty. The technical analysis demonstrates that asset attestation, insurance, and tokenization are all proven technologies. The economic analysis shows that wealth-backed money eliminates the interest transfer without creating new currency mismatch. The objections have focused meticulously on currency denomination minutiae – debating whether bonds should be denominated in CAD or BUCKs, analyzing basis point spreads, and citing historical gold-standard volatility. But this misses the fundamental transformation: *Alberta can stop being a borrower and become a wealth monetizer*. The objections to commodity-backed /bonds/ simply don't apply to wealth-backed /money/. The forest has been missed for the trees. The $325.1 billion compound advantage over 30 years represents the difference between remaining trapped in debt-based finance and embracing direct wealth monetization. This is not about which currency to borrow in – it's about whether to borrow at all. Footnotes ───────── [1] Or, the province can convert BUCKS to CAD$, USD$, etc. when required to pay suppliers in Fiat currency. [2] And rare examples like Tether, which monetizes its gold and bitcoin holdings backing about 20% of USDT, and is certainly at least effectively "broad money".