A Framework for the Development of a National Crypto-Currency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to provide a conceptual framework as to whether a central bank or a monetary authority should issue a crypto-currency given available technology and what are the consequences of doing so. Under the fiat standard the value and purchasing power of money has experienced an exponential decay, whilst prices have increased exponentially. Typically, a central bank is responsible for monetary and financial stability, including settlement and payment mechanisms. A proposed methodology is provided that involves both quantitative and qualitative analysis to measure the comparative monetary performance, stress testing and impact assessment of a new crypto-currency that includes backing by gold, silver and a basket of commodities. The scope of the proposed framework involves a monetary economic analysis, supported by a technological investigation, under the framework of Shari’ah compliance, to explore an impact assessment of the adoption of a national crypto-currency. The significance of this study is that, it provides a framework for the development of a new national crypto-currency, which retains its’ store of value in terms of monetary performance and price stability, that would also investigate whether it’s implementation is viable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".