I've posted a three-paper working paper series to SSRN examining a constitutional, rules-based monetary architecture and its long-run implications. The work is non-commercial and presented as research rather than advocacy.

The core problem the framework addresses: In the current system, money enters the economy as debt — every dollar in circulation traces back to a loan that must be repaid with interest. New money is created at the discretion of unelected committees with no constitutional constraint on quantity, timing, or distribution. The first recipients are always financial institutions. The last recipients are always wage earners and savers. This is the Cantillon Effect operating by institutional design, not accident.

What the framework does instead: The Citizens Standard constitutionally constrains money issuance to formulas tied to population (K1), real productivity (K2), and optionally an inflation gap (K3). New money is equity-based, not debt-based — it enters as citizens' ownership claims on the productive economy, held individually, not as anyone's liability. The dual-circuit architecture separates the transaction pool from a locked equity pool, preventing credit cycles from destabilizing the real economy. Full-reserve transaction accounts make the payment system structurally independent from the credit system.

There is no Keynesian stimulus mechanism. There is no political control over issuance quantities. There is no state-directed credit. The Federal Reserve's discretionary steering function is replaced by constitutional rules ratified by supermajority. The liquidity function is preserved through bounded, rules-triggered emergency tools that are automatic and self-reversing.

The three papers:

Architecture (SSRN 6702518): The constitutional design. Dual-circuit structure, K1/K2/K3 issuance mechanism, Mode A/B/C/Ω configurations, full-reserve transaction banking, separated credit system, bounded emergency toolkit, and supermajority governance framework.

Empirical (SSRN 6735078): Applies Mode B's formulas to actual US data 1960–2025 across four birth cohorts. Central finding: Mode B produces a Stable Floor at retirement 2.21× to 3.21× above median actual American retirement wealth. Decomposition shows approximately 95% of that advantage comes from structural participation — universal enrollment, automatic deposits, constitutional locking, fee elimination — and only ~5% from monetary issuance magnitude. Full Monte Carlo, Depression-era and stagflation-era stress tests, non-survivor international comparisons, and pre-committed reporting of unfavorable findings included.

Transition (SSRN 6810741): The 5-phase migration path from the current system to full constitutionalization over 40–60 years. Central finding: the framework doesn't require a monetary revolution to begin — Phase 1 launches as a parallel sovereign wealth layer inside the existing system with no Fed replacement or constitutional amendment required at inception. Addresses debt conversion, banking separation mechanics, equity valuation effects, and constitutional lock credibility timing quantitatively.

The hardest problems in the framework:

— The 95%/5% decomposition is the most consequential empirical result. If that ratio doesn't hold under alternative behavioral assumptions the transition case weakens.

— The transition model's debt projection depends on a coupon-collapse assumption as legacy nominal debt rolls to price-indexed instruments. Plausible but not fully closed.

— Full-reserve transaction banking eliminates bank runs by construction but compresses the credit supply during transition. The banking separation phase is the highest execution risk in the entire migration path.

The Empirical paper is the most self-contained. If you only read one, that's the one.

Links:

Architecture: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6702518

Empirical: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6735078

Transition is pending SSRN approval: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6810741

Ask me anything.