Both or neither? Here's the answer.

Fundamentally we need to think about how money is created and whether this might be done for the public good.First and foremost we need an accessible, inclusive, democratic economy.Ring-fencing would help make banks more resilient.Simply making banking and finance more obviously public and accountable is a good start.Holding to breaking up the banks would be a good start.

It is really important to treat the fundamental issue of how money is created and its distributon equitably.

Decentralisation gets rid of any potential conflict of interest.The best systems have money that's created in accordance with a democratic system.

What forms of participation should be offered?

Options exist for how to make monetary policy more representative

What to do with physical cash?

I) Good in crisis

ii) We should experiment with new, local currency systems

III) A society that shuns coercion increases equality

iv) A society that shuns coercion increases equality(Coercion is almost always held over people who have less power by those who have more.)

v) Changes to the value of currency that played a central part in the most recent economic crisis need to be outlawed.

vi) Value is more morally important than rights.

vii) Insensitivity to changes in the value of money can diminish, neglect (last resource), even violate [rights].

viii) It would make sense to explore the viability and effectiveness of local currency to function.

Pros of digital currency:

Cryptocurrencies have become highly sought after for a number of reasons, some of which can be seen as more advantageous than the traditional cash system.

One of the more pros of digital currency is ease of use. Purchasing items with a credit, debit or bank card is easier than ever and any customer interested in obtaining bitcoins must first create a digital wallet. These wallets make it as easy as sending a text message.

Another pro is convenience. Making purchases with credit and debit cards is easy and the transaction can take place anywhere with an internet connection.

Some people are leery over bitcoin in particular because it is not auditable. But though it cannot be audited, it can be traced if the source is known.

Another pro is the elimination of transaction fees. There are never any fees with digital currencies and for many businesses survival depends on discounts or other incentives offered for every good or service purchased.

And of course, people want to know about security. The digital wallet keeps one’s bitcoins totally safe within third party servers or on the user’s online computer. No person needs physical contact and all private transactions occur over the internet.

Some merchants that have begun accepting Bitcoin cash appreciate the following benefits, if their customers favour the digital currency:

• Total anonymity of transactions, and the convenience of payment without needing a bank account

• International payments – Anyone with a computer or smartphone can send and receive bitcoins to someone else anywhere in the world for low or no cost

• Exchange rates risks – Bitcoin is volatile, but transactions are quick

• Enhanced security – Cryptographic signatures provide some protection for the intellectual property, privacy, and money trade

Cons of digital currency:

The con of digital currency is the lack of oversight. There is no government or national bank behind bitcoin.

And bitcoin and digital equivalents like ethereum are now being used as a speculative asset, a commodity in some instances, on stock exchanges. But this does not involve any (currently) significant investment risk for individual users.

But however, it does involve very significant investment and other risks for companies, employers, and shareholders.

Corporate tax laws and agencies are applied very differently than in the case with bitcoin.

The lack of regulation can be a pro or con depending on where the person stands on its impact. Bitcoin is extremely volatile on the open market.

Countries that have legalized digital currency:

Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Costa Rica, Sweden, Uruguay, France, Malaysia, and Malta, employ one or more of these strategies. The UK, Switzerland, Austria and Canada are currently examining legislative approaches.

The United States of America first published their position on cryptocurrency in July 2014. They categorize cryptocurrencies as "all forms of currency that currently exist exclusively in digital form." The country focuses on the freedom of people to use cryptocurrency in any form for any reason, including criminal activities and financial fraud. They provide all kinds of services that support the conversion and exchange of digital currency to their people.

The SEC provides compliance guidance for digital asset securities. They want to ensure that innovations in digital technology are not forced out of the market unlawfully, which can be disruptive to the critical functioning of the economic and financial markets. They help users to understand key concepts and tradeoffs right from the very start.

With these strategies, governments maintain control in some capacity yet they allow citizens to have capabilities that some countries might prohibit. It is unclear which strategy is best. These approaches may cause difficulty for law enforcement agencies, as they have to circumvent technical protections to gather evidence .