Citizens Standard — Sovereign, Rules-based, Universal

The Citizens Standard  ·  the diagnosis

You saved a dollarIt didn’t wait for you

A dollar you saved in 2000 buys about 54 cents today. You didn’t spend it. It simply bought less every year.

$1 saved in 1971… ≈ 12¢ now
12¢ kept 88¢ gone

Purchasing power of one US dollar, 1971 to today. Illustrative, from US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U data (1971-2026).

Here is the strange part: that didn’t happen because you were careless. It happened because more dollars kept being made, and every new one made the ones you were holding worth a little less.

No one calls it a tax. But year after year it takes the same thing a tax would, a slice of what you earned and kept, and it takes the most from the people who did the responsible thing and saved.

$1 nowis worth more than$1 later

Next year it takes a dollar and some change to buy what one dollar buys today: $1.x > $1. The “and some change” is the part that quietly leaves your pocket.

This isn’t a law of nature

Money is a human institution. It is unlike rain, which you cannot stop. What was made can be remade.

The erosion isn’t baked into money. It’s baked into who gets to make it, how much, and whether you had any say. You didn’t.

And the value that slips out of your dollar doesn’t evaporate. It goes to whoever spends the new money first. Just never you.

So the real question is who gets to decide, and where the difference goes. What if both answers were you?

See the difference

Years you hold it 20 years
Today’s money
55¢
what your dollar can still buy
The Citizens Standard
$1.00
your choice, kept

After 20 years, inflation has quietly taken 45¢ of every dollar you saved.

$1 0 today 20 yrs

Figured at 3% inflation a year, close to the dollar’s long-run average. You can change that, and everything else, in the full engine.

That gap isn’t a forecast or an opinion. It’s just arithmetic: what happens to money that loses a few percent of its value every year, for years on end. The longer you do the responsible thing and save, the more it takes.

That’s one choice: money that holds its value. Citizens could pick differently, a little inflation for a larger dividend, and that’s the point. Nobody hands you a rate you never voted for. The choice belongs to the citizens, and however it’s set, the newly made money returns to you as a dividend and a locked savings floor instead of quietly leaving your pocket.

This is one dial out of many. And changing how money works isn’t a radical act. It’s your right.

The right to remake money

The founders named a right to remake any governing power that stops serving the people. A money system is one of those powers, and the Constitution already gives Congress the means to remake it. No amendment required.

This framework shares its diagnosis with another independent project, Public Cash Money.

Have AI explain the Citizens Standard

Want to understand it, or check whether it holds up? Give any AI the companion document and paste the prompt below. It asks the AI to explain the framework clearly first, then evaluate it honestly.

  1. Download the companion document (one file, the whole framework): the buttons below.
  2. Attach it to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any AI (drag the file in, or use the paperclip). Attaching is more reliable than links, since many AIs can't open web pages.
  3. Paste the prompt below and send.
I've attached a companion document for a monetary framework called the Citizens Standard. I'm trying to understand it and judge whether it holds up. Please help me in two stages. First, explain it clearly, as if teaching someone smart who is new to it: - What problem is it trying to solve, and why does that problem exist? - How does the framework actually work? Walk me through the core mechanics in plain language: how new money is created, where it goes, the banking change, the different "Modes," and how it's meant to keep prices stable. - What is genuinely novel or interesting about the idea? Engage with it on its merits. Take your time here. I want to actually understand it before we judge it. Then, evaluate it honestly: - What parts are solid (mathematical results, accounting identities), what parts hold only inside the model's assumptions (simulations), and what parts are unproven claims about the real world (behavioral, institutional, political)? - The document has an "Honest limits" section listing ten load-bearing weaknesses. Do you agree those are the real weak points, or are there load-bearing assumptions it missed? - Where does it hold up, and where is it weakest? Be fair and clear, not a cheerleader and not a hit piece. If something is well-supported, say so; if something is a modeling assumption presented as fact, say that too. If you have browsing, the full 14-paper series and replication code are at https://citizensstandard.org/papers.html - you can check any specific number there.
Audio Overview0:00 / 0:00