From Shells to Soulbound Tokens: My Reflections on the Three Metamorphoses of Money and the Vision o

From Shells to Soulbound Tokens: My Reflections on the Three Metamorphoses of Money and the Vision of "Fluid"

I have always wondered: what is money, really?
When I set out to build the foundation for my "Fluid" vision—a new form of money—I realised I had to first answer a more ancient question: why do humans need money at all? If the essence of money has never changed, then why does cryptocurrency excite me, a communist? My conclusion is this: money is a social power relation, not a tool. From shells to cryptocurrencies, money has undergone three metamorphoses, each corresponding to a fundamental restructuring of social power. My envisioned "Fluid" may well stand at the threshold of a fourth metamorphosis—though it must first confront a fatal question: how to avoid becoming yet another speculative symbol devoured by capital.

First Metamorphosis: From "Object" to "Faith" – Money as a Collective Imagination

In primitive tribes, shells and stones did not become money because they were useful, but because they were scarce and hard to counterfeit. Yet what truly made shells money was not the shells themselves, but a collective imagination shared by tribe members: I accept this shell because I believe others will accept it too.
This shared "faith" is the true origin of money.
At this stage, the power of money resided in the whole tribe. There was no centralised authority; the value of money stemmed from consensus itself. This primitive form fascinates me—it echoes my vision for "Fluid": money should be a collectively owned accounting token, not a tool manipulated by a few.
But primitive money had a fatal flaw: it was too vulnerable to natural supply shocks. When new shell sources were discovered, the monetary system could collapse instantly—an early lesson in the perils of "decentralisation."

Second Metamorphosis: From "Faith" to "Power" – The Marriage of Metal Money and State Sovereignty

The emergence of metal money was not a result of technological progress, but of power centralisation. As tribes evolved into states, rulers realised that whoever controlled the minting of money held the lifeblood of society.
Gold and silver, with their chemical stability, were naturally suited to serve as money. Yet what truly sustained metal currency for millennia was the backing of state violence—the king's profile and the official stamp. At this point, money completed its first metamorphosis: from "collective imagination" to "sovereign symbol." Its credit no longer derived from tribal consensus, but from state laws and armies.
This reveals the essential truth about money: money is always an extension of power. In the age of shells, power belonged to all; in the age of metals, power belonged to the state. As a communist, what I oppose is money becoming a tool of class oppression, not money itself.

Third Metamorphosis: From "Power" to "Digits" – The Credit Expansion of Fiat Money and the Seeds of Crisis

The decoupling of fiat money from precious metals is often misunderstood as a "fall" of money, but I see it as an inevitable metamorphosis. When productivity exploded, the pace of gold mining could never keep up with wealth creation—deflation is more terrifying than inflation, because it strangles economic vitality.
The greatness of fiat money lies in its complete reliance on state credit, which grants it theoretically unlimited flexibility. This gives governments the power to intervene in economies and respond to crises. Yet it also plants the seed I cannot accept: fiat money becomes a political tool. When governments can dilute people's wealth by printing money, the "fairness" of money is completely lost. Money is no longer a collectively owned accounting token, but a regulatory valve in the hands of a few decision-makers.

Fourth Metamorphosis Underway: The Promise of "Decentralisation" in Cryptocurrency – and Its Betrayal by Reality

The birth of Bitcoin was a rebellion against the over-concentration of fiat power. Satoshi Nakamoto's vision was to use cryptography and distributed ledgers to bring money back onto the track of "technological consensus." It would no longer rely on state credit, but on mathematics and code. For the first time, I—as a communist—saw technological hope: if the issuance and governance of money could be determined by algorithms and universal consensus, rather than by governments and capital, would that not be the ideal of decentralisation?
But reality hit me hard.
As I delved deeper into how to realise "Fluid," I discovered a cruel paradox: as long as a cryptocurrency has "tradability" and a "spread," it will inevitably be consumed by the logic of capital. No matter how fair my code, no matter how noble my whitepaper, once the token lands on an exchange, there will be "whales" and "market makers." Price fluctuations attract speculators; speculation distorts the token's intended use; and ultimately, Fluid becomes just another "pump-and-dump" story preying on retail investors.
This is not a failure of technology, but of the inertia of power structures. Under the existing capitalist market structure, the decentralised technology of cryptocurrencies has instead become a faster, more hidden tool for capital to harvest wealth. Bitcoin and Ethereum have reached a scale "too big to manipulate"—not because their design is more just, but simply because they are large enough that the cost of manipulation is prohibitive. This is the victory of scale, not of ideas.

My Concluding Thought: The Ultimate Form of Money Should Be a "Non‑Transferable Credential"

Based on these reflections, I have chosen a completely different path for "Fluid": not a coin, but a credential. My envisioned "Fluid" is not a speculative asset like Bitcoin, but a non‑transferable "Soulbound Token"—an untradeable certificate of labour.
In this vision:

• Money no longer serves as a store of value; it retains only a function of measuring value.
• Every contribution (coding, translating, governance participation) is recorded by AI and converted into "Fluid points."
• These points cannot be bought, sold, or transferred; they can only be used for governance voting or to access on‑chain AI services.
• Points decay over time, preventing early participants from permanently monopolising decision‑making power.

I admit that this appears "heretical" in the eyes of traditional crypto. But my thinking tells me: communism is not about "replacing" money, but about "liberating" it—returning it from a tool of capital accumulation to a symbol of labour.
I envision a future where AI optimises resource allocation, humans define meaning and value, and "Fluid" exists purely as a non‑colonisable social accounting unit. It pursues neither price appreciation nor market capitalisation. It pursues only one thing: that every labour be fairly seen and fairly measured.
This is my ultimate understanding of money—as someone who believes in cryptocurrency technology, yet holds even more firmly to the communist ideal.
In this age of AI-driven technological revolution, this era of explosive productivity, I believe everyone needs to understand this new form of money—cryptocurrency. It is not speculation, nor is it a pyramid scheme; it is genuine thinking about the future.