Is Bitcoin Morally Superior to Fiat Currency?

Can the type of money we use foster human flourishing? Is the form of money we use, and not merely the end for which we use it, something that can be critiqued on a moral basis? And is the popular cryptocurrency Bitcoin a realistic solution to many of the problems in our financial status quo? In his latest book, Moral Money: The Case for Bitcoin, Eric Sammons argues that the answer to each of these questions, as well as many accompanying ones, is in the affirmative. Sammons, whose name might be familiar due to his role as editor-in-chief of CrisisMagazine.com, steps outside his normal area of writing to bring together his expertise as a software developer, a 13-year Bitcoin investor, and an expositor of Catholic theology and the natural law. His analysis and conclusions reveal a depth of thought that doesn’t disappoint.

Sammons, however, doesn’t direct his writing solely to a Catholic audience. While sustaining an inherently Catholic framework, his core arguments find their fullest support in the natural law, which he describes as those “inherent and immutable moral principles which we can know through reason alone.” His contribution is unique, for it situates a new technological phenomenon within the millennia-old tradition of natural-law theory, citing or paraphrasing at various points Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From these criteria, he proceeds to determine the moral character of Bitcoin, rather than beginning with the cryptocurrency and attempting to accommodate the natural-law tradition to it.

Economically speaking, Sammons’s position shines through as broadly Austrian. Early on, he defines value as subjective. Following Carl Menger, an early father of the Austrian School of Economics, he goes on to espouse the doctrine of scarcity in regard to individual valuation, a key proposition of Austrian thought. More importantly, Sammons premises much of his argument on the inherent immorality of centralized banking and the manipulation of currency value by elites and rulers, a key point for Austrians from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Murray Rothbard. The foundations of this objection, however, can be traced in principle to Aquinas’s arguments against usury in the Summa Theologiae, and in explication to the 1609 treatise On the Alteration of Money by Juan de Mariana, a Salamancan Jesuit.

The key proposition, though, is simple: Bitcoin is the most moral form of money because it is independent, meaning it is the least subvertible. (Sammons’s argument hinges to a degree on Bitcoin’s individual network value and distinctness from other cryptocurrencies.) As he explains, “Moral money is less prone to manipulation and control by small groups of people. It reduces and may even eliminate systemic immoral issues with the money itself.” In addition to this central characteristic, Sammons also presents a number of other properties money must have to be considered “moral.” It should be divisible (able to be subdivided into smaller amounts), portable, durable, fungible (units of it are interchangeable), verifiable (not easily counterfeited), and scarce (secure from sudden increases that debase its stability and purchasing power).

These criteria, Sammons argues, determine the usefulness and efficiency of a type of money, as well as its moral character, “meaning [whether] it minimizes widespread and systemic theft, fraud, and corruption.” The most enduring forms of money, he argues, rank highest in a test of the criteria he proposes. The reader might astutely point out that gold meets (or exceeds) many of the same criteria as Bitcoin. Sammons acknowledges this. But, he argues, “Bitcoin, not gold, is the path forward.”

The modern moral problem of fiat currencies (government-issued currencies that are not backed by a physical commodity), Sammons says, “initially grew out of the portability limitations of gold (and silver).” Paper money, which was “morally inferior but tactically superior,” soon supplanted precious metals as the physical medium by which value was exchanged, and the process of money creation and valuation was ceded by the many to the few.

Bitcoin, however, changes the equation. Because it is decentralized by nature, Sammons argues, it solves the problem of bank/government control of currency value and manipulation for political and monetary gain. But, because Bitcoin is immaterial relative to precious metals, it solves the portability problem inherent to physical stores of value, such as gold. For this reason, Sammons argues, Bitcoin is comparable to, or exceeds, precious metals in the three-prong test of value he proposes. As a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account (a standard of price by which goods or services can be priced), Bitcoin proves its greater usefulness, efficiency, and morality relative to both precious metals and other forms of paper money and fiat currency.

According to Sammons, Bitcoin’s adoption brings additional moral benefits. He gives eight Catholic natural-law principles in support of this: Theft (particularly of purchasing power) is wrong; families have a right to the fruits of their labors; workers deserve a just wage; economies should have a stable currency; temperance should be encouraged, and consumerism discouraged; the poor should be cared for; and fathers should be able to provide for their families. Thanks to Bitcoin’s inherent decentralization, it cannot easily be inflated artificially (though demand can and does fluctuate). Nonetheless, considering its novel status at only 17 years operational, Sammons argues that it is far more stable than the traditional basket of fiat currencies considered in standard monetary calculations.

To understand how Bitcoin achieves this outcome, we first must understand what it is and how it works. Simply put, it is a digital unit of account. It is represented by entries on a publicly viewable digital ledger, known as the blockchain. And it is possessed via an access sequence that connects the holder to the blockchain and allows him to dispose of as much as he needs. Because only 21 million Bitcoin can exist (though every Bitcoin can be subdivided to the eighth decimal), the currency is not subject to artificial manipulation or inflation borne of monetary-supply increase, thereby avoiding the pitfall of direct purchasing power theft. Bitcoin’s set issuance limit also encourages temperance and discourages consumerism. As Sammons explains, “Bitcoin specifically rewards a low time preference while fiat money encourages a high time preference. A low time preference is the better attitude, because it discourages immediate gratification and encourages discipline and simplicity when it comes to material goods.” He concludes that though Bitcoin can’t force people to restrain themselves, “it does reward those who do.”

The non-inflationary, decentralized nature of Bitcoin also provides another moral benefit: It incentivizes savings in a way modern fiat currencies simply cannot. Sammons is right: “A world in which breadwinners can…prepare for the future is far more family-friendly (and therefore moral) than a world of constantly devaluing fiat currency.” But there’s more. In a Bitcoin economy, Sammons observes, religious people (such as traditional Catholics) would be less susceptible to “financial cancellation.” Government leaders would be hamstrung in their efforts to initiate and carry out “unjust and endless wars.” And the status quo Cantillion Effect, “which favors [with increased purchasing power] those closest to the money creation (governments and banks) over the rest of society,” would be removed. Unlike modern fiat currency, Bitcoin doesn’t favor “the well-connected rich over the poor and middle-class,” a key consideration from the standpoint of justice and care for the poor.

Nevertheless, Bitcoin is not without its drawbacks. As many objectors rightly point out, it is devoid of truly direct precedent within monetary history. Never has the concept of value become so abstracted from the physical realm. And never has the process of economics felt so digital and devoid of humanity. Sammons addresses this objection, recognizing the particular obstacle this poses to Catholics, bound as we are to a “faith [of] incarnation” in which “the body and the physical world are integral to our salvation.” Money is a tool, he argues, which needn’t be inherently incarnational, and Bitcoin does, in fact, exist in some way through physical computers that power the digital blockchain upon which its continued existence depends. But his defense fails to fully address the experiential ramifications of adopting such a currency. Local community-based interactions and transactions — the kind Patrick Deneen, following St. Thomas, praises in Why Liberalism Failed (2018) as essential to building culture — are inherently incarnational.

Without a physical exchange of value, we stand to lose something human about the idea of exchange itself. A farmer or a craftsman trading his time, sweat, and labor in exchange for a value representation of alphanumeric computer code is objectively less human than the exchange of something physical — even a piece of paper with a smiling president on it — for a physical good in a temporal location and moment in time. Should this objection preclude further adoption of Bitcoin or disqualify its use entirely? Not necessarily. But at the same time, we ought not unduly cheapen our estimation of what we stand to lose while we still have it: a physio-centric practice of exchange, a product of thousands of years of civilization.

Other objections to Bitcoin arise from a technical standpoint. For example, its continued existence relies on the Internet and electronic distribution methods; without either, it is worthless to its holder. Although gold is not as portable, it remains a fundamentally less contingent store of value, making it a more secure option for those uncertain of the trajectory of the modern world. In a related vein, Bitcoin is pseudonymous, but it is not anonymous. Unlike an anonymous transaction, in which there is no way to connect the transaction with the people who conduct it, Bitcoin exchanges are merely pseudonymous, which means “the parties don’t use their real names” in the transaction. This is to say, as real-life criminal cases have demonstrated, government authorities can and have tracked Bitcoin transactions to particular individuals and arrested and imprisoned them (on rightful charges such as drug smuggling, it must be added). Nonetheless, the allure of a completely traceless payment process reveals a misunderstanding of Bitcoin’s properties.

Finally, the paramount political virtue of prudence provides a guiding light throughout this consideration. Sammons wisely draws careful parameters for the case he makes. Bitcoin, he writes, “is not a perfect form of money.” Perfection, he admits, is impossible in a fallen world. People will commit sins and practice vices until the day of Christ’s second coming. But, practically speaking, the more Bitcoin is embraced, the less “powerful governments and institutions [are able] to systematically commit… crimes.” Instead, the incentives built into the monetary system will favor virtue “far more than those of the fiat system.” Bitcoin, Sammons concludes, is the practical solution to the modern woes of our financial system. It is “the most moral monetary system ever conceived,” and it can and will “topple the structure of sin that is the fiat monetary system” if allowed to do so. Invigorating words and inspiring promises like these make a strong case for at least a partial adoption of Bitcoin, and — if Sammons is right — our children and their children may well flourish economically and morally as a result.

©2026 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, click here.