In The Bitcoin Standard, Saifedean Ammous argues that societies flourish under “hard money” systems like gold and decline under fiat systems. He ties sound money to cultural excellence, long-term thinking, and historical progress, while blaming fiat currencies for consumerism, short-termism, and moral decline.

This narrative has a seductive simplicity, but it falls into the same trap as many other theories of history: it replaces one myth of linear progress with another. Far from offering a nuanced view of human development, Ammous’s argument recycles an overly deterministic and reductive framework.

Linear Progress: A Misguided Lens

Ammous’s model rests on the idea that sound money drives inevitable progress, a notion reminiscent of 19th-century narratives about historical “advancement.” Like these older theories, it imposes a linear trajectory on a far messier and contingent reality.

As philosopher John Gray points out, technological progress often follows a relatively linear path, as innovations build upon previous breakthroughs. However, the same cannot be said for political or cultural progress, which are deeply contingent and often cyclical. History is rife with examples of political systems regressing or collapsing, and Gray famously critiques those who believe liberal democracy represents the “end of history.”

Ammous’s theory assumes that monetary systems shape not only economies but also the moral and cultural trajectories of societies. This deterministic view ignores the complexity and unpredictability of history, where progress - if it happens - is never guaranteed and is influenced by a multitude of forces beyond economics.

Prehistoric Innovation Without Money

The focus on money as the primary driver of progress also ignores humanity’s achievements before the advent of formal monetary systems. Early humans made monumental advancements - crafting tools, creating cave art, domesticating animals, and developing agriculture - without anything resembling “hard money.”

These breakthroughs were driven by necessity, creativity, and collaboration within social groups. Exchange systems in early societies often relied on reciprocity or informal credit systems, rooted in trust and relationships rather than currency. The absence of money did not inhibit innovation, nor did it prevent cultural flourishing in prehistoric communities.

Ammous’s narrative, by ignoring this critical period, overlooks how human ingenuity thrives in diverse economic contexts, not just those defined by monetary systems.

Romanticising the Past

Ammous ties historical “golden ages” like the Renaissance to hard money, claiming they were periods of cultural flourishing driven by sound monetary policy. This conveniently overlooks the role of broader forces - such as political stability, access to knowledge, and technological innovation - in shaping these eras.

Moreover, his critique of modern culture as inferior to the art and architecture of “hard money” periods is deeply subjective. Art evolves to reflect its time, and dismissing contemporary culture as degraded ignores its engagement with today’s complexities. Ammous’s argument is less a historical analysis and more a projection of personal taste.

Progress Isn’t Inevitable - Or Monetary

Ammous’s narrative assumes that money is the primary driver of progress, but history tells a more complicated story. Human innovation and cultural flourishing have occurred under diverse systems, from credit economies to fiat systems. While technological advancements may often build on one another, cultural and political progress are far less predictable.

Gray’s critique of progress is particularly instructive here. He warns against conflating technological advancements with moral or political improvement and critiques the idea that any system - whether liberal democracy or sound money - represents an inevitable endpoint of history. Ammous’s argument falls into a similar trap, treating hard money as not just a financial system but as the cornerstone of moral and cultural superiority.

Bitcoin: A Technology, Not a Moral Doctrine

It’s important to clarify: I think Bitcoin is a remarkable technological innovation with significant potential. It offers numerous benefits, such as decentralisation, financial sovereignty, and increased transparency, which could play a transformative role in the future of finance. However, the moralistic and deterministic narrative often surrounding Bitcoin - especially in the works of authors like Ammous - does the technology a disservice.

Bitcoin is not the panacea for all societal ills, nor is it the cornerstone of a moral or cultural “Golden Age.” The surrounding rhetoric that ties Bitcoin to inevitable historical progress and superiority over fiat money presents an overly simplistic and, at times, damaging view. Instead, we need to embrace new narratives - ones grounded in the complexity of history, in the real-world challenges we face, and in the full spectrum of human experiences.

Conclusion

Ammous’s argument in The Bitcoin Standard replaces one linear progression myth with another, framing sound money as the key to inevitable cultural and historical progress. While technological advancements may follow a relatively linear path, political and cultural developments are far more cyclical and contingent. Early human innovation without formal monetary systems further challenges the idea that money is the sole or primary driver of progress.

As John Gray reminds us, the myth of progress blinds us to the complexity and unpredictability of human development. Sound money may have its merits, but tying it to moral and cultural superiority oversimplifies the drivers of history. Human progress resists such tidy explanations, and so should we. It’s time to embrace a more nuanced, realistic view of history - one that allows for the full potential of Bitcoin, not as a utopian solution, but as an innovation that can serve humanity in diverse and unpredictable ways.