Methodology
How Monetary Topology evaluates monetary systems.
Why this grid?
Currencies — local, free, complementary, classical — do not compare naturally. They differ in their issuance methods, usage rules, territorial anchoring, their relationship to time, value, power, and ecology.
This platform offers a three-axis analysis grid that positions each monetary project according to its economic, ecological and social contribution. The goal is not to rank, but to make comparable systems that we tend to judge on a single criterion.
The three axes
- € Economic — the capacity of the system to foster production, exchange, price stability, trust in value, and access to credit.
- 🌿 Ecological — the impact of the system on natural resources, externalities, and incentives toward sobriety or overconsumption.
- 👥 Social — inclusion, redistribution, territorial anchoring, democratic governance, working conditions and cooperation.
How to read the scores?
Each axis is rated out of 100. A higher score indicates that the project, based on its design choices, contributes more strongly to the objective of that axis. A score is not an overall value judgement — a project can very well score modestly on one axis while excelling on another.
The overall score (visible on the home page and in the project list) is simply the arithmetic mean of the three axes. It allows for a quick read, but the theme-by-theme detail tells a more nuanced story.
The grid
The grid is composed of 8 themes (from the legislator to consequences), each broken down into several criteria. For each criterion, the contributor checks the choices that best describe their project. Each choice has been weighted across the three axes by the working group that originated the grid.
The complete structure of this grid can be viewed interactively on the Codex.
Contribute
Anyone can submit a project and fill it in themselves after registration. Projects then go through a publication step and their criteria can be subject to reviews by other contributors.
The platform is open and its code is public. Feedback, criteria proposals or weighting challenges are welcome via the built-in review mechanism.
Known limitations
The grid reflects the methodological choices of our group. It is not (yet) an established academic standard. Evaluation is always subject to evolution based on your reviews. You can propose reviews of criteria in the dedicated menu (we strongly encourage you to do so). We collect and update criteria once a year. Also propose your economic systems to grow the database — we are reachable at contact at econologistes.org.
Read the published research papers:
- The weightings are debatable — which is precisely why the review mechanism exists.
- A well-completed project remains subjective: who fills it in, from what angle, with what information.
- The tool measures design choices, not measured impacts. Two projects with similar choices may have very different effects on the ground.
Origin and philosophy of the tool
A starting observation
The project was born from an observation: money is everywhere treated as a technical or natural object, when in reality it is a political institution that profoundly structures the organization of societies and their ecological trajectories. Research on money remains fragmented, experiments are dispersed, and there is a lack of a common framework for comparing and learning collectively. Without a comparison tool, the dominant system — contemporary monetarist logic and its neoliberal institutional framework — appears as an unquestionable given.
Topology, not typology
Rather than proposing a new typology (which imposes fixed categories), we chose a topological approach: a descriptive framework built a posteriori from observable characteristics shared by different systems, regardless of their origin, legality or ideological orientation. This choice follows in the footsteps of earlier work (Pineault, Boyer-Xambeu et al., Lietaer & Kennedy, Blanc, Tichit et al., Martignoni, Dissaux & Fare) which all showed the impossibility of establishing a universal classification of monetary systems — and the value of a flexible and participatory framework.
A grid with eight themes
The grid is organized into 8 themes: generalities, legislator, monetary institution, issuance and redemption rules, usage rules, currency creation, operation, and expected social and ecological consequences. The six central themes (from legislator to operation) cover the structural choices of a monetary system, while themes 0 and 7 provide context and observed effects. Each theme breaks down into characteristics (the fundamental questions every system must answer), themselves divided into elements (the precise ways of responding). We explicitly distinguish design characteristics — chosen a priori by designers — from emergent properties — observed a posteriori in real usage (circulation speed, network topology, price dynamics, adoption scale).
Rating 0–9 and peer review
Each element is rated from 0 to 9 across the three axes, with the sum of points constrained to 9 (except for Likert-type questions). The rating does not seek to produce a definitive ranking but to visualize the profile of a project on shared dimensions. With more than 600 elements in the model, interpretive subjectivity is inevitable — which is precisely why we integrated from the outset a peer review mechanism that enables collaborative validation, contestation and evolution of scores as well as of the grid structure itself. The framework thus remains deliberately open, evolving, and designed to accommodate plurality rather than flatten it.
A collective and iterative construction
The analytical framework was developed collectively, starting from a simple question: what fundamental decisions must every monetary system answer, whether explicitly designed or inherited from usage? From this question emerged a systematic hierarchical decomposition — from general theme to precise characteristic, then to concrete element — which made it possible to identify, discuss and refine more than 600 possible expression modalities. The grid was not deduced a priori from a theory; it was built through back-and-forth between existing literature, observation of real systems, and debate among contributors with varied profiles (economists, complementary currency researchers, practitioners, activists). Several projects have already been scrutinized to validate its relevance and usability, and the list grows with each new contribution.
A three-step rating
The rating of each element follows a three-step procedure: first, its theoretical alignment with each of the three axes is evaluated; it is then compared with the other elements of the same characteristic to estimate its relative impact; finally, all elements are ranked from most to least impactful. The sum of points across the three axes is constrained to 9 (except for Likert-type questions), which forces an explicit trade-off between economic, ecological and social rather than an undifferentiated accumulation. Each rating is accompanied by a textual justification, making the grid auditable: a contributor can understand — and challenge — the choices made before them.
A decidedly living tool
The philosophy underlying the whole is that of an evolving, adaptive tool. Rather than seeking to neutralize the subjectivity inherent in any normative evaluation, we have placed it at the heart of the device: disagreements between evaluators — technical, ideological or methodological — are not obstacles but analytical materials, to be made visible and discussable. Users are not only invited to fill in forms: they can propose new elements, challenge weightings, or reconfigure the very structure of the topology. This openness is part of a broader approach — nourished notably by exchanges within the RAMICS community (Research Association on Monetary Innovation and Community and Complementary Currency Systems) — which considers monetary plurality not as a curiosity to classify, but as a democratic resource to cultivate.
Reference: Delandre P., Derudder P., Fert F., Tichit A. (2026). Towards a Topology of Monetary Systems. International Journal of Community Currency Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, 5-55. www.ijccr.net/article/view/9503.
Conference paper: Delandre P., Derudder P., Fert F., Tichit A. Towards a Topology of Monetary Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis and Framework. 7th Biennial RAMICS International Congress in Italy — The Future of Money: Democracy, Localism and Inclusion, RAMICS, Nov. 2024, Rome, Italy. HAL Id: hal-04773860 (version 1, 08-11-2024).