Berkshares
Local Complementary CurrencyLocal Massachusetts currency exchangeable through banks and accepted by hundreds of Berkshire region businesses.
| Type | Local Complementary Currency |
| Region | Massachusetts, USA |
| Status | Active |
| Links |
M69 Score
M69 Alignment2.2
Minimally aligned
1.02.03.04.05.0
Monetary Sovereignty1.9
Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)Civilizational Durability2.0
Sovereignty + Governance + ResilienceUniversal Adoption3.0
Traction (2x) + InclusivityIss Mod3x
2.6
Stability2x
1.4
Fia Ind & Int2x
1.5
Traction2x
2.8
Sovereignty
1.6
Governance
2.2
Resilience
2.3
Inclusivity
3.5
Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.
Key Findings
Inclusivity is the strongest category (3.5/5.0)because BerkShares is a genuinely community-oriented, nonprofit-issued currency with no insider advantage, no VC extraction, low barriers to entry for local residents, and largely equal treatment of all participants — a rare profile in monetary systems.
Fiat Independence is the weakest category (1.2/5.0)because BerkShares is structurally a US dollar wrapper — 1:1 pegged, 100% fiat-backed, entirely dependent on banking infrastructure, and would fail if the dollar failed. After 20 years, the Schumacher Center's aspiration to peg to a local goods basket remains unrealized, representing the widest gap between M69 vision and implementation.
The project demonstrates a fundamental tension between local resilience philosophy and fiat dependency in practice.The Schumacher Center's founding vision of "import replacement" and "conscious money" is deeply aligned with M69 principles, but the currency mechanism chosen (a dollar-backed certificate) is among the most fiat-dependent designs possible. The vision outpaces the implementation by a wide margin.
Twenty years of survival is remarkable but declining participation signals structural challenges.BerkShares scores 5/5 on longevity and 5/5 on external recognition — few local currencies achieve either. However, the steady decline from 400 businesses to 300, and from 16 bank branches to 6, suggests the model may be slowly contracting rather than growing.
The digital transition on Celo blockchain adds architectural optionality but introduced legal risk.The open-source Humanity Cash smart contracts (MIT license) are a positive sign for sovereignty and resilience, but the 2023 lawsuit between Humanity Cash and the Schumacher Center has complicated the digital roadmap, and the custodial server-side Controller design undermines the self-custody potential of blockchain technology.
Big takeaway: BerkShares is a philosophically rich but mechanically conventional local currency that demonstrates both the power and the limits of the community currency model.Its M69 score of 2.2 reflects a project that excels at inclusivity and cultural identity but fundamentally operates as a fiat-derivative instrument with limited sovereignty, no purchasing power protection, and declining adoption — a cautionary example of how strong values alone cannot substitute for sovereign monetary design.
Detailed Rating Breakdown
Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12BerkShares is a paper-based local currency launched in September 2006 in the Berkshire region of western Massachusetts. Developed by the Schumacher Center for a New Economics and issued by BerkShares, Inc., a democratically structured nonprofit, the currency was designed to support the local economy by encouraging residents to spend money at locally-owned businesses. Users purchase BerkShares at participating banks (originally at a 5% discount, now at 1:1 parity) and spend them at face value at local merchants. The currency features denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 BerkShares, with artwork celebrating local figures like W.E.B. Du Bois, Herman Melville, and Norman Rockwell. Over 10 million BerkShares have been issued since launch, with approximately B$140,000 in active circulation as of 2025. From an M69 alignment perspective, BerkShares has notable strengths in its founding philosophy and cultural narrative. The Schumacher Center's vision of "import replacement" — building local productive capacity to reduce dependence on external supply chains — resonates deeply with M69's vision of sovereign, place-based money. The project's 20-year track record, democratic nonprofit governance, and deep roots in E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" philosophy give it strong cultural identity. A digital version built on the Celo blockchain by Humanity Cash was piloted in 2022, with approximately 70 businesses participating in the digital pilot alongside 300+ businesses accepting paper notes. However, BerkShares is fundamentally a fiat-derivative instrument: it is pegged 1:1 to the US dollar, fully backed by dollar reserves at participating banks, and has no independent stability mechanism or sovereign unit of account. The currency cannot function without its banking relationships, operates only in a single small region (population ~21,000), and has experienced steady decline in participation — from 400 businesses and 16 bank branches at peak to roughly 300 businesses and 6 bank offices today. An academic study published in Ecological Economics (2022) found no measurable economic impact from the currency. A 2023 lawsuit between Humanity Cash/Neighborly Capital and the Schumacher Center has complicated the digital transition. These factors result in low scores across fiat independence, spending power stability, and sovereignty, offsetting the project's genuine strengths in inclusivity and cultural alignment.
Issuance Model3x2.6
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| IM-01 | Is issuance permissionless?Single issuer. BerkShares, Inc. is the sole issuing authority. Notes are printed by Excelsior Printing on special Crane & Co. paper and distributed through participating banks. In the digital version, tokens are minted by the Humanity Cash Controller contract when fiat deposits are received. No one outside the issuing organization can create BerkShares. | 1 |
| IM-02 | Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism. BerkShares are created through direct exchange — users deposit US dollars and receive BerkShares. There is no borrowing, lending, or collateralized debt position involved in issuance. The digital version follows the same model: fiat deposits trigger token minting. While the currency is fully backed by dollar deposits, the issuance mechanism itself is a direct exchange, not a debt instrument. | 4 |
| IM-03 | Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Not directly tied. Supply is driven by user demand — when someone deposits dollars, BerkShares are created. This loosely correlates with local economic activity (more demand = more circulation), but there is no algorithmic link to any economic index. The Schumacher Center has discussed potentially pegging to a basket of local goods but has not implemented this. | 2 |
| IM-04 | Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?Demand-driven supply with no cap. BerkShares are minted on demand when users deposit dollars and redeemed when they convert back. This creates natural elasticity tied to user demand, though not to economic activity per se. Supply can expand and contract based on deposits and redemptions. No hard ceiling exists, but expansion requires corresponding dollar deposits, acting as a natural constraint. | 3 |
| IM-05 | Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Yes, through redemption. Users and businesses can return BerkShares to participating banks and receive US dollars back (currently with a 1.5% fee for businesses, $0.50 fee for individuals with $5 max). In the digital version, tokens are burned when users withdraw to fiat. This is a user-initiated contraction mechanism that functions regularly. The redemption fee discourages but does not prevent contraction. However, contraction is not automatic or symmetric with expansion. | 3 |
Spending Power Stability2x1.4
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| SPS-01 | What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?No targeting mechanism. BerkShares are pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. Stability is entirely inherited from the dollar — there is no independent protocol mechanism to target or adjust spending power. The currency imports whatever stability (or instability) the dollar provides. | 1 |
| SPS-02 | What benchmark is used to measure spending power?Single fiat reference: 1 BerkShare = 1 USD. The dollar peg delivers moderate stability but with meaningful inflation — US CPI inflation has averaged roughly 2-3% annually, with periods of higher inflation (2021-2023). The Schumacher Center has discussed indexing to a local goods basket but has not implemented any alternative benchmark. | 2 |
| SPS-03 | How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No published methodology because no independent stability measurement exists. The 1:1 dollar peg is a fixed assertion. There is no reporting on purchasing power deviation, no audit of whether the peg has held, and no mechanism for external verification beyond the bank exchange window. | 1 |
| SPS-04 | What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?The 1:1 dollar peg has held at the bank exchange level since inception. However, the exchange rate has shifted over time — originally 95 cents bought 1 BerkShare (5% discount), now it is 1:1. This represents a change in the exchange mechanism, not a depeg. As a dollar derivative, BerkShares have experienced the same purchasing power erosion as USD — roughly 40%+ since 2006 launch. | 2 |
| SPS-05 | Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?Neither addressed. By pegging to the dollar, BerkShares inherit the dollar's short-term stability and its long-term purchasing power erosion. There is no distinction in design between these timescales. The Schumacher Center has articulated aspirations to move beyond the dollar peg to a local goods basket, but this remains unrealized after 20 years. | 1 |
| SPS-06 | Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?Purely local. The stability mechanism (dollar peg via bank exchange) functions only within the Berkshire region of Massachusetts. Users must physically visit one of 6 bank offices or live in the region to access the digital wallet. No global accessibility whatsoever. | 1 |
Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x1.5
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| FI-01 | What is the protocol's unit of account?Hard-pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. 1 BerkShare = 1 USD. Items cost the same in BerkShares as they do in US dollars unless otherwise stated by the business. The unit of account is entirely borrowed from the dollar. | 1 |
| FI-02 | What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?100% fiat reserves. Every BerkShare in circulation is backed by US dollars held at participating banks. The digital version follows the same model — tokens are minted only when fiat is deposited via Dwolla, and burned when fiat is withdrawn. Fully fiat-backed. | 1 |
| FI-03 | Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?Completely dependent. The entire BerkShares system depends on participating banks to exchange dollars for BerkShares and vice versa. Without bank participation, the currency cannot be issued or redeemed. The decline from 16 bank branches to 6 offices demonstrates this vulnerability. The digital version also depends on Dwolla for fiat transfers. | 1 |
| FI-04 | Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?No price feeds or oracles exist. The 1:1 dollar peg is a fixed administrative rule, not an oracle-driven mechanism. Prices at businesses are quoted in dollar-equivalent amounts. All value reference is fiat-denominated. | 1 |
| FI-05 | What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?Protocol fails. BerkShares are a wrapper around US dollars. If the dollar collapses, BerkShares collapse with it — the bank reserves lose value, the peg becomes meaningless, and the exchange mechanism breaks. No independence from fiat systemic risk. The Schumacher Center has discussed moving toward a local goods basket peg, but no concrete transition mechanism exists. | 1 |
| FI-06 | Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?Aspirational only. The Schumacher Center has discussed indexing BerkShares to a basket of local goods rather than the dollar, and the broader philosophy of import replacement envisions greater local economic self-sufficiency. However, after 20 years of operation, no concrete transition steps have been taken. The project acknowledges fiat dependency but has no actionable roadmap. | 2 |
| FI-07 | Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?No composability. BerkShares is itself a local currency — it does not serve as a base layer for other currencies. No other currencies denominate in or settle against BerkShares. The currency is a monolithic, single-region instrument with no mechanism for local expression or composability. | 1 |
| FI-08 | Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No open standards. BerkShares does not define any interoperability protocol. The digital version uses the Celo blockchain and ERC-20 standard, which provides generic crypto infrastructure interoperability, but no BerkShares-specific monetary interoperability standard exists. The Schumacher Center's Local Currencies Program provides guidance for other regions to create their own currencies, but these are independent systems, not interoperable ones. | 2 |
Traction2x2.8
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| TR-01 | Is the project still active?Partially active with reduced scope. BerkShares continues to operate as of March 2025 with B$140,000 in circulation and 300+ businesses accepting the currency. However, participation has declined significantly from peak (400 businesses, 16 bank branches). The board is active and the March 2025 update confirms ongoing operations, but at reduced scale. | 3 |
| TR-02 | How long has the project been in existence?Launched September 29, 2006. As of 2026, approximately 20 years of continuous existence, making it one of the longest-running local currencies in the United States. | 5 |
| TR-03 | How many active users does the project have?No precise user count published. The region has approximately 21,000 residents. With B$140,000 in circulation and 300 businesses participating, active individual users likely number in the low thousands at most. The digital wallet app has minimal downloads (2 stars, 2 forks on GitHub). Estimated well under 10,000 active users. | 2 |
| TR-04 | How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?Approximately 300 businesses as of 2024, down from 400 at peak. These are locally-owned businesses in the Berkshire region across various sectors. The digital version has approximately 70 participating businesses. This falls in the 100-1,000 range. | 3 |
| TR-05 | Is the currency used as a unit of account?Used as unit of account within the community network. Businesses display prices in BerkShares (typically identical to dollar prices). Some businesses offer BerkShares-only discounts. However, the 1:1 dollar peg means prices are effectively denominated in dollars. BerkShares function as unit of account within the network, but this is inherited from the dollar rather than independently established. | 2 |
| TR-06 | Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Susan Witt, co-founder via the Schumacher Center, has been central to BerkShares for 20 years. The March 2025 update confirms active board members. However, the Humanity Cash lawsuit (2023) created complications around the digital transition. The board remains active but leadership is aging and succession is unclear. | 3 |
| TR-07 | What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Key partners include: Schumacher Center for a New Economics (founding organization), 2 participating banks (down from 4), Humanity Cash (digital development, now in litigation), Dechert LLP (legal counsel for digital launch). The project has 2-5 meaningful partners. | 3 |
| TR-08 | Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Extensive coverage. Peer-reviewed academic research in Ecological Economics (2022). Multiple PBS NewsHour features (2007, 2013, 2023). Coverage in Boston Globe, WBUR, Inc. Magazine, Nonprofit Quarterly, and many others. Cited in academic literature on community currencies. One of the most studied local currencies in the US. | 5 |
| TR-09 | Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Mixed. Originally, users received a 5% discount for using BerkShares (buying at 95 cents), which was a material financial incentive. This discount has been eliminated (now 1:1), and a $25 annual membership fee has been introduced. Continued use now reflects genuine commitment to local economics rather than pure financial incentive. However, the removal of the discount coincided with declining participation. | 3 |
| TR-10 | What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?Declining across most indicators. Business participation down from 400 to 300. Bank exchange points down from 16 branches (4 banks) to 6 offices (2 banks). Circulation relatively stable at ~B$140,000. The digital pilot adds some activity but with only 70 digital businesses and minimal app downloads. Overall trend is stagnation to slight decline. | 2 |
| TR-11 | Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Strong founding narrative rooted in E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" philosophy, import replacement economics, and Susan Witt's vision of "conscious money." Currency notes feature local cultural heroes (Du Bois, Melville, Rockwell). Deep connection to Berkshires regional identity. The Schumacher Center provides philosophical infrastructure. However, community engagement is primarily transactional rather than movement-driven — users participate for practical local shopping, not ideological commitment. | 4 |
Sovereignty1.6
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| SO-01 | Can any single entity shut down the project?Yes. The participating banks could withdraw from the program, immediately halting issuance and redemption. The state of Massachusetts could regulate or prohibit the currency. BerkShares, Inc. as the sole issuer could cease operations. The decline from 4 banks to 2 banks demonstrates this vulnerability — further bank withdrawal would critically impair the system. | 2 |
| SO-02 | Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Paper currency cannot be self-hosted or replicated — it requires the specific printing infrastructure (Crane & Co. paper, Excelsior Printing). The digital version is open-source (MIT license) across three GitHub repositories, which is positive. However, the core paper-based system is entirely proprietary in its production. Mixed: digital is open-source, paper is not reproducible. | 2 |
| SO-03 | Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Fully subject to a single jurisdiction. BerkShares, Inc. is a Massachusetts nonprofit. The Schumacher Center is based in Great Barrington, MA. All participating banks are Massachusetts institutions. The project cannot operate without US legal permission. State or federal regulatory action would be decisive. | 1 |
| SO-04 | Does the project control or custody user funds?Hybrid custody model. Paper BerkShares are bearer instruments — whoever holds the notes controls the funds (non-custodial). However, the underlying dollar reserves are held by participating banks (custodial). The digital version is custodial: the server-side Controller contract manages wallet transactions on behalf of users, and users authenticate via AWS Cognito with username/password, not private keys. | 2 |
| SO-05 | Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Significant key-person risk. Susan Witt has been the driving force behind BerkShares and the Schumacher Center for decades. The March 2025 board update suggests active board members, but the project's identity and institutional knowledge are heavily concentrated. The Humanity Cash founder departure (and lawsuit) already disrupted the digital transition. | 2 |
| SO-06 | Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical third-party dependencies. The paper system depends on participating banks (which have been withdrawing), Crane & Co. (paper supplier), and Excelsior Printing. The digital system depends on Celo blockchain, AWS (Cognito for auth, hosting), and Dwolla (fiat payment processing). Revocation of any of these would materially impair the project. | 1 |
| SO-07 | Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?Paper BerkShares are bearer instruments and cannot be censored at the transaction level — anyone holding notes can spend them at accepting businesses. However, BerkShares, Inc. controls the business directory and could remove businesses. The digital version has a server-side Controller that manages all transactions, creating a censorship capability. Mixed: paper is censorship-resistant, digital is not. | 2 |
| SO-08 | Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Paper BerkShares offer moderate privacy — physical cash transactions are inherently private, with no transaction logs. However, the bank exchange process creates records. The digital version collects personal information via AWS Cognito (username, password, bank account for Dwolla), and all transactions are tracked through the centralized server. Mixed: paper offers some privacy, digital does not. | 2 |
| SO-09 | Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?No technological enforcement. The monetary rules (1:1 peg, reserve requirements, exchange fees) are policy decisions made by BerkShares, Inc. and can be changed at any time — as demonstrated by the shift from 95-cent exchange rate to 1:1, and the introduction of a $25 membership fee and 1.5% redemption fee. The digital smart contracts enforce ERC-20 mechanics but the Controller contract is server-managed and upgradeable. | 1 |
Governance2.2
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| GO-01 | How are decisions about the project made?BerkShares, Inc. is a democratically structured nonprofit with a board of directors elected by members at annual meetings. Decision-making follows standard nonprofit governance procedures. However, the details of governance processes, meeting frequency, and decision documentation are not publicly available. Some governance structure exists but transparency about process is limited. | 3 |
| GO-02 | Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Membership is open to anyone in the region. Board of directors is elected by members at annual meetings. This is a democratic structure in principle, but the actual number of voting members, board composition, and power distribution are not publicly documented. Given the small community, decision power is likely concentrated among a small board. | 2 |
| GO-03 | Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?Limited transparency. Board meeting outcomes are occasionally published (March 2025 update). The monetary mechanism is simple and understandable (1:1 dollar exchange) but the reserve balances, exact circulation figures, and financial statements are not regularly published. The digital smart contracts are open-source (MIT license), which provides some auditability for the digital component. | 2 |
| GO-04 | Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Governance is already concentrated. A small nonprofit board controls all monetary decisions. While membership is theoretically open, the practical reality is that a handful of board members and the Schumacher Center leadership make all significant decisions. A well-positioned individual could capture governance with modest effort given the small scale. | 2 |
| GO-05 | How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project made?Changes are made by the board with occasional community input. Major changes — like eliminating the 5% discount, introducing the $25 membership fee, and launching the digital version — appear to have been board decisions communicated to the community. No formal proposal or voting process for changes is documented publicly. | 2 |
| GO-06 | Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No separation. The same board makes decisions about the exchange rate (monetary policy), membership fees (operational), business directory management (operational), and digital strategy (strategic). The shift from 95-cent to 1:1 exchange rate was a monetary policy change handled through the same process as any other decision. | 2 |
| GO-07 | Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?The Schumacher Center provides strong philosophical principles — E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful," import replacement economics, conscious money, and local self-reliance. These are well-articulated in publications and talks. However, they are not formally encoded in BerkShares, Inc.'s governing documents as immutable principles. They exist as guiding philosophy, not constitutional protection. | 3 |
| GO-08 | Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?Issuance rules can be changed by the board with no special constraints. The exchange rate was changed from 95 cents to 1:1 — a fundamental monetary policy shift — through ordinary board governance. Fees were added. The digital version was launched. None of these required supermajority votes, time-locks, or constitutional protection. Monetary policy changes follow the same process as any other decision. | 2 |
Resilience2.3
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| RE-01 | Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?BerkShares launched in 2006, just before the Great Recession (2008-2009). The currency survived this period and continued operating, though the academic study found no measurable protective effect on the local economy. The project also survived COVID-19 (2020-2021), which disrupted physical cash usage. The Humanity Cash lawsuit (2023) is an ongoing adversarial event the project is navigating. Multiple moderate stresses survived with ongoing operation. | 3 |
| RE-02 | Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Minimal redundancy. Two participating banks (down from four) provide some redundancy for exchange services. Paper notes have inherent redundancy (distributed across holders). But the printing infrastructure, organizational leadership, and digital infrastructure all represent single points of failure. The digital system depends on AWS, Dwolla, and Celo with no documented failover. | 2 |
| RE-03 | Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Partial recovery possible. The paper currency design is simple and could be replicated — new notes could be printed. The digital contracts are open-source (MIT license) and could be redeployed. However, the key institutional relationships (banks, business network, community trust) would be difficult to rebuild. A catastrophic failure of the banking partnerships would be very hard to recover from. | 2 |
| RE-04 | Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?Very simple core design. Paper-based 1:1 dollar exchange at banks, spent at local businesses. Anyone can understand the concept in minutes. The digital layer adds complexity (Celo blockchain, smart contracts, Dwolla integration) but the core concept remains elegant and minimal. Documentation exists through the Schumacher Center's extensive publications. | 4 |
| RE-05 | Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Paper currency is technology-agnostic and essentially timeless — printed notes require no specific technology infrastructure. The digital version depends on the Celo blockchain, which could become obsolete, but the open-source MIT-licensed contracts could theoretically be redeployed on another EVM chain. The paper system's simplicity is a resilience strength. | 4 |
| RE-06 | How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?Limited stress mechanisms. The 1:1 dollar backing means a "bank run" on BerkShares would be a conversion rush back to dollars, which the reserves should cover since the system is fully collateralized. However, the project imports all dollar-related macro stress (inflation, purchasing power erosion). No circuit breakers, dynamic mechanisms, or stress-specific protocols exist. The 2008 recession tested the system, and it survived but showed no protective economic effect per the academic study. | 2 |
| RE-07 | Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Fragile funding. BerkShares, Inc. is a nonprofit that struggled to achieve tax-exempt donation status. The $25 annual membership fee and 1.5% business redemption fee generate some revenue, but the project appears to operate on thin margins. The Schumacher Center provides organizational support but has its own funding constraints. The project has survived 20 years, suggesting minimal but sufficient funding, though likely dependent on volunteer effort and grants. | 2 |
| RE-08 | Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Paper bearer instruments work offline by definition — no internet, no electricity, no technology required for physical BerkShares transactions. This is a genuine strength for disconnected operation. However, the system requires the ongoing institutional infrastructure of banks and a managing nonprofit, which limits multi-century durability. The design concept is highly portable across time and technology. | 3 |
| RE-09 | Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Not designed for machine participation. Paper BerkShares require physical handling. The digital version uses traditional username/password authentication (AWS Cognito), and the server-side Controller manages transactions — no programmatic API for autonomous agent interaction is documented. The system assumes human participants at every step. | 1 |
Inclusivity3.5
| Code | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| IN-01 | Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Restricted by geography. BerkShares are accessible to anyone in the Berkshire region — no nationality, wealth, or credit check required. Visitors can also participate. However, the currency is only usable within a small region of Massachusetts (population ~21,000). $25 annual membership fee applies for the digital version. While locally open, globally restricted. | 3 |
| IN-02 | What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Low cost for paper. Paper BerkShares can be obtained at a bank by exchanging any amount of US dollars (smallest denomination is 1 BerkShare = $1). The digital version requires a $25 annual membership. Transaction fees are negligible for users; businesses pay 1.5% on redemption. Paper-based participation is very low cost. | 4 |
| IN-03 | Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Not specifically designed for underbanked populations, but accessible in principle. BerkShares requires a bank account for the digital version (Dwolla integration) and bank visits for paper. The Berkshire region is not a notably underbanked area. The project's focus is on local economic resilience, not financial inclusion per se. No specific outreach to underbanked communities documented. | 3 |
| IN-04 | Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Benefits flow broadly. The original 5% discount was a direct benefit to all users equally. The current system has no seigniorage extraction — BerkShares, Inc. is a nonprofit and the currency is fully backed 1:1. Fees (membership, redemption) fund operations, not insider enrichment. No VC allocation, no token sale, no insider advantage. The Schumacher Center is a nonprofit operating in the public interest. | 4 |
| IN-05 | Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Largely equal treatment. All users can purchase and spend BerkShares under the same rules. Businesses have slightly different rules (1.5% redemption fee vs. $0.50 for individuals, $5 max for individuals). There are minor operational tiers but no fundamental inequality. All participants have equal governance rights through membership. | 4 |
| IN-06 | Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Paper BerkShares are anonymous bearer instruments — no identity required to receive or spend them. Bank exchange requires a bank relationship (implicit identity). The digital version requires account creation with personal information through AWS Cognito and bank account linking through Dwolla. Mixed: paper is pseudonymous, digital requires identity. | 3 |
| IN-07 | Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?No explicit anti-concentration mechanisms, but the design inherently limits concentration. BerkShares can only be spent at local businesses, creating a natural ceiling on hoarding. The geographic limitation and 1:1 dollar peg mean there is no speculative motive to accumulate. The original 5% discount incentivized spending over saving. No active concentration features either. | 3 |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is BerkShares and what problem does it solve?
BerkShares is a paper-based local currency launched in September 2006 in the Berkshire region of western Massachusetts. Developed by the Schumacher Center for a New Economics and issued by BerkShares, Inc., a democratically structured nonprofit, the currency was designed to support the local economy by encouraging residents to spend money at locally-owned businesses.
How is money created in BerkShares?
Single issuer. BerkShares, Inc. is the sole issuing authority.
How does BerkShares maintain stable spending power?
No targeting mechanism. BerkShares are pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. Stability is entirely inherited from the dollar — there is no independent protocol mechanism to target or adjust spending power.
Is BerkShares independent from fiat currencies?
Hard-pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. 1 BerkShare = 1 USD. Items cost the same in BerkShares as they do in US dollars unless otherwise stated by the business.
Who controls BerkShares and can it be shut down?
Yes. The participating banks could withdraw from the program, immediately halting issuance and redemption. The state of Massachusetts could regulate or prohibit the currency.
How widely adopted is BerkShares today?
No precise user count published. The region has approximately 21,000 residents. With B$140,000 in circulation and 300 businesses participating, active individual users likely number in the low thousands at most.
Is BerkShares still active and growing?
Partially active with reduced scope. BerkShares continues to operate as of March 2025 with B$140,000 in circulation and 300+ businesses accepting the currency. However, participation has declined significantly from peak (400 businesses, 16 bank branches).
What are the main risks or weaknesses of BerkShares?
Fiat Independence is the weakest category (1.2/5.0): because BerkShares is structurally a US dollar wrapper — 1:1 pegged, 100% fiat-backed, entirely dependent on banking infrastructure, and would fail if the dollar failed. After 20 years, the Schumacher Center's aspiration to peg to a local goods basket remains unrealized, representing the widest gap between M69 vision and implementation.
What makes BerkShares unique from an M69 perspective?
Inclusivity is the strongest category (3.5/5.0): because BerkShares is a genuinely community-oriented, nonprofit-issued currency with no insider advantage, no VC extraction, low barriers to entry for local residents, and largely equal treatment of all participants — a rare profile in monetary systems.
How is BerkShares's M69 Score calculated?
BerkShares scores 2.2/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 1.9, Civilizational Durability 2.0, Universal Adoption 3.0. Strongest: Inclusivity (3.5). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.4).