Until I was invited to speak on a panel hosted by the London-based Astraea Group on “The Future of Money,” I hadn’t given the topic deep thought. Like most of us, I had grown used to the pace of digital innovation and its steady transformation of daily life. But that event sparked a shift in my thinking. The conversations I had with my distinguished fellow panellists and prominent attendees stirred something deeper and somewhat philosophical: a realisation that money, once tangible, physical and private, is now at the frontier of something far more complex, something that may fundamentally reshape our ideas of privacy, freedom and even happiness.
The digital trade-off: control vs. freedom
Human history is a constant push-and-pull between control and liberty. States have always sought greater oversight; people have always resisted. The digital revolution, however, tilted this ancient balance. The internet began as a promise of decentralisation and democratised knowledge but, in exchange, we began giving away slivers of ourselves. At first, it was voluntary. Then it became inevitable. Today, nearly every aspect of our lives is logged, tracked and monetised by someone. What we read, who we speak with, where we go, what we buy, even what we think and how we form our thoughts can be inferred. Search engines now analyse not only what we search for, but how we type, the mistakes we make, the hesitations between keystrokes. Our intentions and impulses are reduced to data points and sold as behavioural predictions. And we accepted it. Why? Because in return, we got personalisation. Services that are generally “free” but perfectly tailored to our habits and preferences. But now I find myself asking: was this a fair exchange? Are we giving away too much of our private lives for too little? Would it have been better to pay for these services and keep our privacy intact? What seemed like a bargain, unlimited access in exchange for a few permissions, now feels like a subtle erosion of something essential. And, as AI, biometrics and immersive platforms expand, the implications are no longer hypothetical.
The role of the state and the next phase: digital currency
As states gain access to more of this data, either directly or via partnerships with tech companies, we inch closer to a world where the infrastructure for total citizen profiling already exists. Some governments are already testing it. And if we move fully to digital currencies, the final piece of the puzzle clicks into place.
Digital money could be the closing loop in the architecture of control. In theory, it offers convenience, traceability, efficiency and financial inclusion. In practice, it risks becoming a tool for mass surveillance. Every transaction, every transfer, every coffee we buy or donation we make is logged permanently. Anonymity evaporates. And with programmable currencies, it’s possible to condition spending, enforce social norms, or even apply algorithmic punishments and rewards. Who safeguards our rights in this emerging system? Are digital laws evolving fast enough to protect citizens from this kind of overreach? Who speaks for the public when the architects of the system are both regulators and beneficiaries of enhanced control? The paradox is clear: as we become more connected, we become more exposed. Criminal threats, cyberattacks, identity theft, all grow in parallel with digitalisation. Most of us have already been victims of some form of cybercrime. So where do we go from here?
Utopia or soft surveillance state?
Some futurists speak of a digital utopia: a hyper-connected world powered by artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, virtual reality, brain-computer interfaces. A place where healthcare becomes predictive, catching illness before it strikes. Governance is automated and fair, free from human error. Commerce is frictionless with no more checkout queues, just fulfilment of needs before we even express them. Communication is immersive and borderless, enabling real-time collaboration across continents. In such a world, everything about us is known - our preferences, locations, biometrics, emotions. Algorithms understand us better than we understand ourselves. Surveillance becomes normalised, even welcomed, as the price of efficiency and comfort. But here lies the core paradox: “Happy, but watched.” We say we value freedom but, in practice, many of us trade it daily for convenience. Privacy starts to look old-fashioned. Happiness, instead of being pursued, is curated, engineered via filtered experiences, dopamine feedback loops and algorithmic content that keeps us numb and satisfied. So the deeper question becomes: Is this true happiness or is it sedation? When every experience is optimised, every risk minimised and every dissenting voice moderated, what happens to creativity, rebellion, or self-discovery? Without privacy, do we ever get to know who we truly are? This scenario echoes dystopias long imagined. Orwell’s warning of a society controlled by fear and Huxley’s vision of a society controlled by pleasure. Disturbingly, we may be sliding toward Huxley’s version, where we are not forced into submission but seduced into it.
I must confess, my own perspective on this is complicated. My entire professional life has been dedicated to building digital systems, championing innovation and promoting technological progress in business, healthcare, media, finance and neuroscience. I’ve spent decades exploring how digital tools can enhance human potential. And yet, I now find myself questioning the long-term consequences of the very systems I helped to build. Having lived in both the pre-digital and digital worlds, I increasingly find myself longing for the former - a world where spontaneity, mystery and serendipity thrived. A world where our thoughts weren’t constantly influenced by notifications or nudged by invisible algorithms. This realisation surprises even me, because it challenges the perceived value of a lifetime’s work. That said, I am not opposed to new technologies. I believe in technology’s potential to solve real problems. But I also believe we must reclaim the right to choose how much of ourselves we give away and to whom.
So, what should we do?
I believe we need new frameworks; legal, ethical and philosophical for digital citizenship. We need mechanisms that allow people to opt out, to pay for services with money instead of data. We need transparency from tech companies and accountability from governments. Crucially, as we march toward digital currencies, we need to embed safeguards from the outset:· built-in anonymity options
· independent oversight of central bank digital currencies
· encryption and decentralisation where appropriate
· international digital rights charters
This is not about halting progress. It’s about ensuring that progress serves people, not just systems.
Final thought: the cost of convenience
The future of money is not just about digital wallets, programmable currencies or blockchain efficiency. It is, at its core, a question of power, who holds it, who monitors it and who gets to use it freely. As money becomes digital, its architecture will define more than just transactions; it will define relationships between citizens and states, between individuals and institutions, between freedom and control. This isn’t just a technological shift, it’s a societal pivot point. We must ask ourselves: Are we willing to trade invisibility for convenience? Privacy for speed? Autonomy for automation? Because what’s at stake is more than data. It’s the texture of human life and our ability to dissent, to choose, to be unseen, to act unpredictably. These are not glitches in a system; they are essential to being human. The challenge ahead is to build systems that preserve these human qualities, even as we embrace the efficiencies of digitalisation. That means putting in place ethical frameworks, legal protections and, most importantly, a cultural mindset that refuses to reduce people to data points. So, we return to the central question: Can we be truly happy without privacy, freedom and authenticity? Or are we engineering a future where we feel happy only because we’ve redefined happiness to fit a system that quietly controls us?
In the race to digitalise everything, even money, we must remember: progress is only meaningful if it enhances our humanity, not diminishes it.
This article first appeared in Digital Bytes (14th of May, 2025), a weekly newsletter by Jonny Fry of Team Blockchain.