M69 Score — Methodology

The M69 Score measures how well a monetary project aligns with the Money2069 Manifesto and its Ten Money Commandments. Each project is scored across 8 categories on a 1-5 scale, with categories weighted by their importance to the manifesto's vision.

Formula

M69 Score = weighted sum / 13

= (Issuance Model × 3 + Spending Power Stability × 2 + Fiat Independence & Interop × 2 + Traction × 2 + Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience + Inclusivity) / 13

Result is a score from 1.0 to 5.0. Higher = more aligned with the Money2069 vision.

Category Weights

Category	Weight	Manifesto Source
Issuance Model	3x	Commandment 5: Debt-Free Issuance
Spending Power Stability	2x	Commandments 3 + 6: Value-Preserving + Stable in Daily Use
Fiat Independence & Interop	2x	Commandment 8: Global Standard, Local Expression
Traction	2x	Real-World Impact
Sovereignty	1x	Commandment 1: Neutral & State-Free
Governance	1x	Commandments 2 + 4: Meritocratic + Fair & Transparent
Resilience	1x	Commandments 7 + 10: Long-Lasting & Interplanetary
Inclusivity	1x	Commandment 9: Humanity First

Scoring Rubric

Issuance Model3x

Money must not arise from interest-bearing debt, but from measurable real-world economic activity. The supply should be effectively backed by the value humans create, not by leverage.

Debt-free issuance directly tied to measurable real economic activity (e.g. mutual credit, time-based)

Issuance involves real economic input but not perfectly tied to activity (e.g. proof-of-work mining, collateral-based)

Mixed model — partially debt-free or partially backed by real assets

Created primarily through collateralised debt or yield-bearing mechanisms

Pure credit/debt creation by banks or centralised entities with no economic backing

Underlying questions (5)

IM-01Is issuance permissionless?
IM-02Is new supply created through debt?
IM-03Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?
IM-04Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?
IM-05Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Spending Power Stability2x

Money must target stable spending power over years and decades. A day's honest work today should buy a comparable day's honest living tomorrow. Volatility in everyday use must be minimised.

Explicitly targets stable purchasing power tied to real economic output, with active adjustment mechanisms

Pegged to a stable reference and maintains it reliably (e.g. fiat-pegged stablecoins, though not ideal)

Has stability mechanisms but imperfect — dampened volatility or demurrage-based

Some stability intent but significant price fluctuation in practice

Highly volatile with no stability mechanism (e.g. pure speculative tokens)

Underlying questions (6)

SPS-01What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?2x
SPS-02What benchmark is used to measure spending power?2x
SPS-03How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?
SPS-04What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?2x
SPS-05Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?1.5x
SPS-06Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Fiat Independence & Interop2x

Money must not be pegged to any national currency. The standard should be global and open, so that many local and sectoral units can interoperate while each reflects its own economic reality.

Fully sovereign unit of account, zero fiat reserves, supports local currency composability and open monetary interoperability

Own unit of account with minimal fiat exposure (<10%); transition path from fiat defined; composability architecturally supported

Hybrid unit partially defined by fiat; mixed collateral; interoperability via generic infrastructure only

Soft-pegged to fiat with 50-90% fiat collateral; no local currency support; closed integrations only

Hard-pegged 1:1 to fiat, fully fiat-backed, monolithic design with no interoperability or local expression

Underlying questions (8)

FI-01What is the protocol's unit of account?2x
FI-02What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?2x
FI-03Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?
FI-04Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?
FI-05What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?
FI-06Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?
FI-07Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?2x
FI-08Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?1.5x

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Traction2x

A monetary system is only as good as its adoption. This category measures whether the project is live, actively used, and creating real economic impact — not just theoretical.

Widely adopted, years/decades of continuous operation, measurable economic impact at scale

Live and growing, real users and transaction volume, active development

Launched with modest adoption, active team and community

Early stage, testnet/beta, or declining from previous heights

Concept only, dead/defunct, sunsetting, or purely historical with no current usage

Underlying questions (11)

TR-01Is the project still active?2x
TR-02How long has the project been in existence?
TR-03How many active users does the project have?2x
TR-04How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?2x
TR-05Is the currency used as a unit of account?3x
TR-06Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?
TR-07What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?
TR-08Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?
TR-09Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?
TR-10What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?
TR-11Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?1.5x

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Sovereignty

Money must be credibly neutral and independent of all states, parties, corporations, and tribes — serving everyone equally and remaining open for anyone to use and build on.

Fully state-free, no single controller, permissionless, credibly neutral

Mostly independent but with a foundation or core team that could theoretically exert control

Independent of states but controlled by a single company or small group

Partially state-linked or dependent on regulated entities for operation

Directly state-controlled, government-issued, or fully dependent on state infrastructure

Underlying questions (9)

SO-01Can any single entity shut down the project?2x
SO-02Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?
SO-03Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?
SO-04Does the project control or custody user funds?2x
SO-05Is the project resilient to key-person risk?
SO-06Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?
SO-07Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?1.5x
SO-08Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?1.5x
SO-09Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?2x

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Governance

Value must accrue by merit and contribution, not by privilege. All monetary rules and governance processes must be encoded in open, auditable systems.

Fully open governance, auditable on-chain, meritocratic, permissionless participation

DAO or community governance with transparent processes but some centralisation

Cooperative or foundation-led with member input and public reporting

Corporate governance with limited transparency, insider-controlled decisions

Opaque, no public governance, single entity makes all decisions without accountability

Underlying questions (8)

GO-01How are decisions about the project made?2x
GO-02Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?
GO-03Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?2x
GO-04Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?1.5x
GO-05How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?
GO-06Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?
GO-07Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?1.5x
GO-08Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?2x

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Resilience

Money must be built to survive centuries, new habitats, and the age of AI. Rules must be implemented in open, auditable, credibly immutable and permissionless systems that can operate across extreme latency and disconnected networks.

Battle-tested through crises, fully redundant, simple design, sustainable funding, latency-tolerant, AI-compatible

Survived moderate stress, mostly redundant, well-documented, funded for 3-10 years, programmable for AI agents

Limited stress history, some redundancy gaps, moderate complexity, grant-dependent funding

Untested, minimal redundancy, high complexity, short runway, assumes always-on connectivity

Failed under stress or never tested, single points of failure, no funding model, no recovery path

Underlying questions (9)

RE-01Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?2x
RE-02Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?
RE-03Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?
RE-04Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?
RE-05Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?
RE-06How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?2x
RE-07Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?1.5x
RE-08Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?
RE-09Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Inclusivity

Monetary rules must be designed so that human dignity, broad participation, and real economic flourishing take precedence over pure extraction, optimisation, or machine-only objectives.

Permissionless, globally accessible, designed for broad human participation and dignity

Open to most people with minimal barriers, designed for community benefit

Accessible but with some barriers (geographic, technical, or financial)

Restricted access, requires significant capital or technical knowledge

Exclusive, KYC-gated, designed primarily for extraction or institutional profit

Underlying questions (7)

IN-01Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?2x
IN-02What is the minimum cost to start using the project?
IN-03Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?
IN-04Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?1.5x
IN-05Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?2x
IN-06Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?1.5x
IN-07Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?

Each question is scored 1–5. Category score = weighted average of question scores. See the v0.2-alpha framework for the per-score rubric on each question.

Score Interpretation

Range	Label	Meaning
4.5 – 5.0	Exemplary	Fully embodies the M69 vision; sets the standard
4.0 – 4.4	Highly aligned	Strong embodiment with minor gaps
3.5 – 3.9	Substantially aligned	Clear alignment with notable gaps
3.0 – 3.4	Partially aligned	Meaningful alignment mixed with significant gaps
2.5 – 2.9	Weakly aligned	Some alignment but fundamental structural gaps
2.0 – 2.4	Minimally aligned	Marginal alignment; major structural issues
1.5 – 1.9	Poorly aligned	Little meaningful alignment with M69 vision
1.0 – 1.4	Not aligned	Antithetical to M69 vision or entirely absent

A low score does not mean a project is “bad” — it means the project's design diverges from the Money2069 Manifesto's specific vision of neutral, state-free, spending-power-stable money tied to real economic activity. Many valuable projects score low because they are fiat-pegged, centrally governed, or optimise for different goals.

View Project Scores Read the Manifesto