>Unfortunately, what still causes a significant amount of friction in our cities and prevents inclusive growth is the dominance of cash.
What on earth does cash have to do with societal friction? I find it very eerie and unsettling, how for some years now I've seen numerous articles and thinkpieces written that advocate for removing cash altogether and replace it with some kind of centralized banking system. The dynamics of power for these systems are always about exactly as terrible as you'd expect - completely centralized, where the bank takes care of your money and you may only spend it in places they will let you spend it. Just one example of why this is a terrible idea - in 2010, MasterCard (the very company mentioned in the article) suspended donations to WikiLeaks. All value judgements about WikiLeaks aside, it's a pretty disturbing precedent, that you may only give your own money to people who payment processors allow you to. I can only imagine we'd see much more of that in a "cashless" society where all of your money is owned by other people.
What on earth does cash have to do with societal friction? I find it very eerie and unsettling, how for some years now I've seen numerous articles and thinkpieces written that advocate for removing cash altogether and replace it with some kind of centralized banking system. The dynamics of power for these systems are always about exactly as terrible as you'd expect - completely centralized, where the bank takes care of your money and you may only spend it in places they will let you spend it. Just one example of why this is a terrible idea - in 2010, MasterCard (the very company mentioned in the article) suspended donations to WikiLeaks. All value judgements about WikiLeaks aside, it's a pretty disturbing precedent, that you may only give your own money to people who payment processors allow you to. I can only imagine we'd see much more of that in a "cashless" society where all of your money is owned by other people.