“We are at peak central banking at the moment. The only thing more peak would be a nationalisation of the entire system, and no other bank, full CBDCs…the central bank’s basically controlling all the retail money: did you spend too much on alcohol this week? Did you not? Did you reach your quota of spending this week?”— Matthew MežinskisMatthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss why free banking has always failed due to central bank interference, and how Bitcoin changes the rules of the game. We also talk about how credit is a natural economic phenomenon, and why narrow banking is centralising in nature. - - - - The history of free banking goes back over 1,000 years and it has existed in over 60 countries. It was widespread in the 19th century, but from the early 20th century onwards it was supplanted by central banking in modern economies. However, despite some common narratives, it’s demise was more to do with pressure from governments to create monopolies for currency issuance, than inherent weaknesses in the free banking system.The idea of free banking is re-emerging as a response to the failures of central banks. It is well documented that monopolies often result in market failure due to their constraining of efficiency and innovation. Further, without competition, those running monopolies distort prices and capital through subjective and misaligned priorities. A sovereign debt spiral is a symptom of such centralising control.Matthew Mežinskis is able to bring colour to this issue through his peerless analysis of the different types of money flowing through the economy, and how these are currently out of kilter with the economic system they are intended to support. At the root of the problem is that central banks control both the base money (i.e. the money supply) and the credit supplied to the economy through commercial banks.These tools have been abused. Further, commercial banks have been allowed to get around the rules of the system for decades. As a result, bailouts for commercial banks are happening with alarming regularity. As Matthew asserts in the show: “In the last 100 years, the central bank, the premier banking institution in the United States, has gone to three extremes; [this] never ever has happened in recorded history.” Thank god we have Bitcoin. - - - - What Bitcoin stands for and should be is a debate that has been raging since 2009. Bitcoin’s unique characteristics have drawn many people into its gravity. The realisation that its immaculate conception may never be replicated has resulted in many of those same people guarding Bitcoin’s development with uncompromising zeal. The result has been the rise of Bitcoin Maximalism. Maximalist ideology can be a fuzzy concept: there are no clearly agreed rules or principles; there have been various iterations with different priorities over time. However, it is clearly characterised by conservatism over the development of the protocol, and intolerance for those with differing attitudes. Nevertheless, that is not to say that Bitcoin development can forever remain in stasis. There are and have been pressures requiring upgrades both to the base layer, and in the development of additional layers. This means there is always a creative tension on what changes are required, and how quickly these need to be implemented. Further, as Bitcoin has no leader, it has engendered an ecosystem where advocates organically emerge, who can gain traction and have an outsized influence on the community. This creates further tensions as Bitcoin’s purpose is being proselytized using competing and sometimes muddied beliefs. Thus, it is important that Bitcoiners enable an open dialogue where all ideas are questioned, scrutinized and tested. And such debates should be open to all Bitcoiners, without fear or favour to any powerful interests. Is the question therefore how intolerant we should be of those with d