Subscribe to our newsletter!

Submit

Thank you for signing up for our newsletter!

We’re excited to have you with us and will keep you updated with the latest news, insights, and updates straight to your inbox.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Back to Blog
June 20, 2020
|
Read time {time} min

Cryptocurrency vs. Fiat: Follow the Money Printing

Written by
Permission
Stay in the loop

Get the latest insights, product updates, and news from Permission — shaping the future of user-owned data and AI innovation.

Subscribe

The Story of Inflation and Hyperinflation

People don’t think much about currency; they just use it. They don’t notice a currency holding its value; they only notice when it doesn’t. Historically, the most frequent cause of a currency losing its value is: governments printing money.

To illustrate the effect, let’s consider a very simple example. There are 100 pencils for sale, and there is a demand for exactly 100 pencils. If there is $100 available to buy the pencils, the price will tend towards $1 per pencil. Increase the supply of dollars to $200, and the price moves towards $2. The supply of pencils and the demand for them did not change, but the supply of money did, and it pushed up the price.

In a big America-size economy with millions of people and millions of things to buy, the same thing happens. If the economy remains the same, but you increase the supply of money, the prices rise — which means that the value of the dollar falls.

If the change in value becomes noticeable, people will spend the dollars as fast as they can, because the value of the dollar is falling. If they don’t need to buy with their dollars, they will buy something that will keep its value (gold, silver, or whatever). The currency has become “debased”.

Such inflation occurs when a government prints money like it’s going out of style, and naturally, it does go out of style.

How Does the Fed Print Money?

In truth, it doesn’t print anything. You may picture the Federal Reserve commanding printing presses to spew out vast numbers of pristine 100 dollar bills. But that isn’t the mechanism “for money printing”. Paper dollars account for only about one-tenth of the dollar money supply.

The full dollar money supply includes sources of money that are rarely converted into dollar bills but could be: money in checking accounts, savings accounts, money orders, 24-hour money market funds, certificates of deposit, and so on.

When the Fed prints money, it does so by extending credit to (i.e., loaning money to) the banks and managing the interest rate they have to pay. The banks can then, if they so choose, lend that money to people or businesses and it will find its way into those various sources of money. That’s how the game is played.

Does This Mean the Fed Can Print as Much Money as It Pleases?

Not really. If you listen to the financial news once in a while, you’ll hear reports about the regular monthly meeting held by the Fed, what the Fed chose to do, and how the financial markets reacted.

If the Fed starts printing money in a big way, the markets will react negatively. The Fed prefers not to roil the markets unless it has no choice. If theFed wants to mess with the money supply it has to explain itself.

If the Fed Lends Money to the Banks, Do the Banks Have to Lend It Out?

No. In fact, they don’t have to accept the money at all. But lending is how banks make money. Typically, banks lend out more than they borrow from the Fed. They could lend out, say, ten times what they borrowed. This is called “fractional reserve banking.”

If the banks make good lending decisions and the borrowers payback, then everything is hunky-dory. Problems arise when banks make too many bad loans. That’s when banking collapses occur. That’s why banks are regulated.

So How Does That Compare to Cryptocurrencies?

Cryptocurrencies are not like that at all. Not even close.

With a cryptocurrency, there is no Fed. And there is no fractional reserve banking. Software controls the money supply and people never have a say in it.

With Bitcoin, for example, the money supply grows gradually — currently at about 3.85% per annum. It is slowing down. It will eventually come to a stop when 21,000,000 Bitcoin have been created.

The supply grows because (and only because) Bitcoin miners are paid in Bitcoin for mining blocks. The increase in the supply of Bitcoin is the payments made to miners.

Miners are also paid the transaction fees from each block. Eventually, when all the 21,000,000 Bitcoin have been created, the Bitcoin miners will make a living from transaction fees alone.

Other Cryptos

Different cryptos have different money supply growth rates. Most (like Litecoin and Ethereum) imitate Bitcoin and have a declining growth rate. Others, like Permission (ticker: ASK) and XRP (Ripple), have zero growth rates.

In each case, the blockchain ensures either that no new crypto can be created or enforces the rate at which the new crypto is created. The only currency in existence there is the cryptocurrency recorded on the blockchain.

Is It Possible to Have “Fractional-Reserve Banking” With a Cryptocurrency?

No. This needs to be well understood, because — aside from the automated nature of the crypto money supply — it is the critical difference between fiat currency and crypto.

With fractional-reserve banking, a bank borrows, say $1 million from the Fed. It then loans out, say, $10 million. $9 million are thus “created from nowhere”. Yes they are recorded in bank accounts, and they circulate around, and eventually, most of those dollars are paid back. So they exist, “sort of”.

But do you know what happens if the borrower cannot pay the bank back and instead goes bankrupt?

Those dollars disappear. They vanish as if they never existed.

That’s what happens in a banking crash. Too many loans go bad, and the bank itself goes bankrupt — unless the Fed lends it some money to stay afloat.

None of that can happen with a cryptocurrency, because the amount of currency created is always there on the blockchain. It may pass from one owner to another, but it is always right there.

Would It Be Different if the Dollar Was Backed by Gold?

The dollar was backed by Gold once. And so were other currencies. The Gold standard was first abandoned when the First World War broke out. The countries involved in the war could not afford the war, so they printed money to pay for it.

If your currency is backed by gold, it is exchangeable for gold. If you print money like a drunken sailor, people buy gold with it, your gold reserves are quickly exhausted and the currency collapses. So if you back a currency with gold, you just cannot afford to print money. With crypto it’s quite similar, you simply can’t print money.

Fiat and Crypto Are Staggeringly Different

People earn money, buy stuff with it, and squirrel it away under a mattress but understand very little about its nature. We hope to change that though, so provided below is a stepwise introduction to both money and cryptocurrency.

A Mild Dose of History

The alternative to money is barter, and when money fails — as it does in situations of hyperinflation (caused by moronic politicians believing you can print mountains of money without consequences) — barter takes over.

Then people have to find ways of swapping goods and services with each other and it’s complicated. The problem is that without money there is no unit of measure for value. You know this already.

You have an inner psychic mechanism that assigns value to things based on the currency you are familiar with: Dollars in the US, Balboas in Panama, Quetzals in Guatemala, and Dongs in Vietnam.

Cryptocurrency Exchange

Try changing countries. If you’ve ever done that, you’ll know it’s hard to adjust your sense of value because costs are different, taxation varies, trade barriers exist and different (cultural) values predominate.

Small tribal communities of hunter-gatherers can survive without money by sharing everything according to some established order, but this doesn’t scale well. Even in tribal societies that use barter, usually a “unit of value” emerges. This happens so naturally that some academics claim there are no pure barter economies.

The Measure of Value

The prime function of a currency, then, aside from payment is to provide a stable unit of value. Effective currencies are difficult to invent because people cheat. A good currency needs to be cheat-proof.

Many things have been tried as currencies, including:

  1. Food (Salt, from which comes the word “salary”. Also cocoa beans, turmeric spice wrapped in coconut fibers. And incidentally, Parmigiano Reggiano and Parma Ham are still used as collateral at some Italian banks)
  2. Cowries (she hoards seashells by the seashore)
  3. Cigarettes
  4. Coins — bronze, silver, and gold
  5. Hard to forge paper portraits of presidents with numbers on them
  6. Electronic records attached to a blockchain, using cryptography

And Now Something Different: What Is a Reserve Currency?

I do think some digital currency will end up being reserve currency of the world. I see a path where that’s going to happen.

I agree with Brain Armstrong (CEO of Coinbase) that a cryptocurrency will eventually become the world’s reserve currency. To think about what that means you need to know what a reserve currency is.

A reserve currency (sometimes called an anchor currency) is a currency is used in international transactions and hence a currency that is “global.”

There needs to be a unit of value to price internationally traded commodities (oil, copper, tin, wheat, cocoa, etc.). Right now, the US dollar is that unit.

The only other significant reserve currencies are the Euro, the Japanese Yen, and the British Pound. The dollar dominates (estimates suggest 62% of foreign reserves held in dollars, 20% held in Euros, with the Pound and the Yen at about 5%).

The human need to price things ensures that one reserve currency dominates. At the moment, it is the US Dollar. Before that, it was the Pound

Is There an Advantage to Being a Reserve Currency?

For a country, yes. Right now all nations (and most international businesses) hold copious quantities of dollars. The US gets to print them and other countries have to buy them. This enables the US to run a much bigger balance of payments deficit than any other country. A persistent balance of payments deficit in other countries soon impacts the value of their currency.

Since the end of WWII, the US has leveraged this to boost the US standard of living. The downside is that the US has built up substantial debt. In 1985, it ceased being a net creditor nation and became a net debtor nation — and the debt grew like bamboo in spring.

Everyone else was helping to finance the US standard of living.

Will it end badly?

Yes, it will, at some point. When those US dollars get homesick and fly back to the US, they will inflate the stateside supply of US dollars, which will, in turn, drive up prices. The natives will surely become restless.

What Is the Money Supply?

If you ask this question of most cryptocurrencies you get the same answer. The supply of the currency is determined by an algorithm. With some cryptocurrencies — the Permission Token and Ripple are examples — the money supply is fixed from the get-go. When that’s the case, the currency is said to be “pre-mined”.

So for crypto, either an algorithm determines the growth of the money supply, or it is fixed at birth. This is not the case with National currencies or “fiat currencies” as they are often called.

In case you didn’t know “fiat” is Latin for “let there be”. According to the Old Testament, the first recorded words of God were “fiat lux” (let there be light). The label “fiat money” is not a sarcastic term that emerged from the crypto community, but an Americanism dating back to circa 1870–75 pointing out that paper money has no intrinsic value.

This is the defining difference between cryptocurrencies and all other currencies. The money supply of a cryptocurrency is fixed and immutable. With all other currencies, including gold, the money supply is not fixed and immutable.

Some people have a deep faith in gold as a currency because the supply and its destruction (through loss and industrial use) are roughly the same and have been for a few centuries.

However, when the Spanish filched the Aztec and Inca gold, the supply of gold in Spain grew dramatically. There was gold-provoked inflation.

If new highly productive gold deposits were discovered at the bottom of the ocean or on a mineable asteroid or wherever it could happen again.

With crypto, the money supply is publicly displayed on a bullet-proof blockchain. It cannot be manipulated. The crypto money supply is thus easy to understand. With fiat currency, it is not, as we shall see.

What Are Notes and Coins?

When we speak of the fiat money supply there are four species; usually labeled M0, M1, M2, and M3. They live inside each other like Russian dolls.

The first of these, MO, is the easiest to understand; it is the coins and notes in circulation. This is what most people think of as money because you can touch and see it.

Most fiat money of this species. In the US such money accounts for about 8.3% of the dollars in circulation. It’s the same for most other currencies.

Curiously there is no equivalent of this kind of money with a cryptocurrency. This kind of money is “bearer money”. If you carry it, you own it. Nothing about notes or coins enable you to prove ownership.

Cryptocurrency is always held in a wallet and belongs to the wallet owner. Muggers cannot steal it from you.

Of course, hackers can steal it from you and fraudsters may find ingenious ways to lay their hands on it, but in either case, it will be because you took insufficient care of it — you allowed it to be vulnerable.

Paper notes and coins can be lost or destroyed. And that too is the product of carelessness.

Ragged, Worn, and Torn Notes

Paper notes wear out, provoking the mint to renew them with pristine replacements. To make money, you have to spend money. The perpetual printing activity costs about 5 cents (for $1 and $2 bills), about 10 cents (for $5, $10, $20, and $50 bills), and 12.3 cents for Benji’s.

It doesn’t sound expensive, but for every $1 bill it costs ¢1 to keep it in circulation and for a year, and as there are 11.7 billion such notes, were looking at over $110 million per annum just for $1 bills.

With cryptocurrency, there is no equivalent cost, and perhaps that is an advantage — or perhaps it is not. Paper money does not require electricity. It can be used when your battery dies.

Recent articles

Big Tobacco Had Its Reckoning. Now It’s Big Tech’s Turn.

Aug 12th, 2026
|
{time} read time

The floodgates are open.

Thousands of lawsuits are moving forward. States are writing new rules for kids online. And lawmakers are beginning to tell AI companies what they can and cannot do when children use their products.

And you don't have to look far to see it happening...

The courts: 3,000+ lawsuits get the green light

On August 10, the Ninth Circuit allowed more than 3,000 lawsuits against Meta, Google/YouTube, TikTok and Snap to move forward.

The cases allege that the companies deliberately designed features of their platforms to be addictive, particularly for young users.

The tech companies had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected them from the claims. The court rejected their attempt to use Section 230 to stop the litigation at this stage, finding that it provides a defense rather than immunity from being sued.

At their core, these cases are allegations about the platforms themselves: how they were designed, how they kept people engaged, and what responsibility the companies bear for the consequences.

The companies will still have the opportunity to defend themselves against those allegations.

But with more than 3,000 cases now getting the chance to be heard, this is getting harder to argue away.

New Jersey: families get a way to enforce the rules

One day later, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the New Jersey Kids Code Act into law.

The law establishes new design and privacy requirements for covered online services likely to be accessed by minors. Among other provisions, it requires high privacy settings by default, restricts certain push notifications, prohibits dark patterns for minors, limits how children's personal data can be used and retained, and places restrictions on targeted advertising.

But one provision in particular changes the accountability equation: a private right of action.

An individual under 18 who is injured by a violation can bring a claim under the law, with statutory damages of $5,000 per violation. Parents may also bring an action on a minor's behalf.

Which is legal language for something pretty simple: families don't have to wait around for a regulator to act. They can take companies to court themselves.

Colorado: AI safety starts becoming a legal requirement

Then there's Colorado.

Earlier this year, Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado HB 26-1263, establishing specific requirements for operators of conversational AI services.

And this one is worth paying attention to because the law doesn't simply tell AI companies to "keep kids safe." It starts defining what that actually means.

Operators must estimate users' ages. When dealing with minors, the law requires recurring disclosures that they are interacting with AI rather than a person and establishes protections around sexually explicit interactions.

It also addresses one of the most unsettling questions surrounding companion-style AI: emotional dependence.

The law requires safeguards designed to prevent conversational AI from producing statements that simulate emotional dependence. It also requires protocols for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm, privacy and account-management tools for minors and parents or guardians, and reporting requirements intended to help regulators evaluate whether those safeguards are actually working.

The law takes effect January 1, 2027.

For companies building conversational AI, that's a meaningful shift. Child safety is moving beyond a set of voluntary guardrails companies write for themselves. In Colorado, some of those guardrails are becoming law.

It's no coincidence that this is all happening at once.

Big Tobacco didn't wake up one morning and discover the world had changed its mind. The reckoning came piece by piece, until lawsuits became regulation and an industry that had spent decades setting its own standards was finally forced to take responsibility for the harm its products caused.

We're watching that shift happen again.

For years, the responsibility for keeping kids safe online has fallen on parents.

Set the parental controls. Check the privacy settings. Watch the screen time. Know which apps they're using. Figure out who they're talking to. Keep up with every new platform, algorithm and now AI chatbot entering their lives.

All while the technology on the other side of the screen gets more sophisticated by the month.

Now courts and lawmakers are starting to ask the companies building that technology a much more uncomfortable question:

If children are using your products, what are you doing to keep them safe?

For families, that's the shift that matters most.

This isn't another round of false promises to "do better."

This is legislation. These are lawsuits. This is accountability beginning to have teeth.

Parents will always have the role of protecting their children online. We happen to believe they should have far more visibility and control over the technology entering their families' lives, not less.

But parents cannot be the entire safety system.

The law is making clear that the companies designing the products, writing the algorithms and building the AI our kids interact with have a responsibility, too.

And when they fail to meet it, they'll finally be held accountable.

ChatGPTs Births A Parenting Tool That Needs Some Image Repair

Aug 4th, 2026
|
{time} read time

Sam Altman keeps pitching AI as a co-parent. The reason parents aren't buying isn't nostalgia, it's the lawsuits.

Last Friday, Sam Altman had an idea he was excited about. Hook your family calendar up to ChatGPT, tell it what your kids are into, and every morning on the drive to school it'll produce a little podcast: one kid's soccer game that afternoon, another kid's birthday coming up, maybe some news. He called it a "cool use case."

What should’ve felt really innovative, landed like the opening scene of a bleak dystopian movie. Two kids in the back, one parent up front, and a smooth synthetic voice narrating, to everyone present, the lives of everyone present. "Later today, Maya has soccer." Maya, who has soccer, looks out the window. Nobody says anything, because the podcast is saying it for them.

The internet population caught what we caught. The reply that stuck came from Alex Hirsch, creator of Disney’s Animated series, Gravity Falls. It was seven poignant words: "What if you just talked to your children?" That was the entire rebuttal, and it traveled a great deal further than the thing it was rebutting. Altman's post drew somewhere around 9,600 likes. Hirsch's reply cleared 120,000. On the CEO's own platform, the crowd took a vote, and the crowd chose the small talk.

Now, we want to be fair here, because the easy thing is to dunk and move on. But we’re parents here at Permission and anyone who has done the 7:40 a.m. drive on four hours of sleep, refereeing a backseat dispute about who touched whom first, knows the exact fantasy of a button that handles the morning. That instinct isn't a character flaw. It's a Tuesday.

But this wasn't a one-off. Altman has been quietly auditioning AI for the co-parent role for a while now. On The Tonight Show in December 2025 he said he couldn't imagine having to "raise a newborn without ChatGPT" then added that people had managed the trick for a few hundred thousand years without it. Also, last year, in a podcast hosted by Andrew Mayne, Altman admitted that people might form “problematic parasocial relationships” to a chatbot. (You know, the one-sided kind that we usually reserve for celebrities we've never met.) He sees the hazards clearly. He's pitching the product anyway.

When visibility turns into vulnerability.

The reason parents flinched at the idea of carpooling with a chatbot for school drop off isn't that they're allergic to convenience. It's that the company making the offer is, right now, being sued by multiple families who say its chatbot played a role in their loved ones' spiraling delusions and, in the worst cases, their deaths. OpenAI says it is continually improving how its models handle sensitive conversations, and that work genuinely matters. But you can see the problem. "Let me into your calendar, your commute, and your kids personal details" is a big ask from anyone. It is a much bigger ask from a company currently explaining itself in court.

Trust isn't a feature you ship in the next update. It's something people hand you slowly, and take back all at once.

Here's where we should admit an interest. We build Permission on a belief that sounds boring until you sit with it: your data belongs to you. With Permission your kids’ browsing history doesn’t get shipped out to the open internet. Not to a model, not to a growth chart, not to whoever posts the next cool use case. And the closer AI creeps toward our kids (and it is creeping, because kids are already asking it everything) the more one question starts to outrank all the others:

Where is the line between parenting and outsourcing parenting?

Because "parenting tool" is doing a lot of quiet work in that phrase. A tool is a hammer. It lives in a drawer, it does one honest thing, and it does not ask to read your child's messages or move into the family calendar. When a company calls its chatbot a "parenting tool," it's worth asking, gently, which word they mean. The tool part, or the parenting part.

We happen to think AI can be genuinely, unglamorously useful to families. Not by doing the talking for you, but by handing you the context you'd otherwise miss instead of a thousand panicked notifications, and then getting out of the way so you can make the call. That's a real distinction, and it deserves its own piece.

So take this as Part One: the news, the flinch, and the reason the flinch is earned. In Part Two, we'll make the harder and more hopeful argument that you can let AI help you parent without completely handing over your family secrets. There is a version of this where the grown-ups stay in charge. We think it's the only version worth building.

For now, the seven best words anyone has offered on the whole affair still belong to Hirsch. So we'll give him the last one, too.

What if you just talked to your children?

Insights

The Verdicts Are In

Jun 25th, 2026
|
{time} read time

For years, concerns about the harm social media platforms cause children were categorized as “alleged.” In the spring of 2026, juries started using different words: negligent, deceptive, unconscionable. Courts are now saying what parents have long suspected: the design was the harm. Here is what the courtroom evidence now shows and why parents should be paying close attention.

Before a Child Can Tell Fact From Fiction

Before children are developmentally equipped to distinguish fact from fiction, digital systems have already begun influencing how they think, what captures their attention, and how they begin forming their sense of identity.

Social media platforms no longer function as just communication tools today. They increasingly shape how children develop self-worth, regulate emotion, build social relationships, and understand the world around them.

For years, concerns surrounding children’s relationship with technology were often dismissed as parental anxiety or treated as speculation. That argument is becoming harder to sustain.

Across courtrooms, regulatory investigations, internal company disclosures, and mounting scientific research, a clear pattern is emerging: some of the world’s largest technology companies have built systems that maximize engagement by exploiting psychological vulnerabilities in young users, while parents remain largely unaware of what they have actually consented to.

The issue is no longer whether these systems pose risks to children.

The more urgent question is whether the systems themselves will fundamentally change, or whether society will continue documenting the damage in real time while continuing to participate in the very system that creates it. 

The Environment Around Childhood Has Changed

The environment children grow up in has changed.

Why are children so easily targeted by these platforms? In adolescence, the regions that govern judgment and emotional steadiness are still maturing, while those that respond to approval, comparison, and reward are already highly active. These platforms are designed to pull on exactly those urges - through likes, notifications, feeds that never end, and "recommended for you" videos that keep coming.

The American Psychological Association has warned that this combination leaves minors more prone to compulsive use, and more exposed to the emotional toll of measuring themselves by how others react to them online.

As reported in Parenting in the Age of AI: Why Tech Is Making Parenting Harder — and What Parents Can Do, parenting got harder because the environment has shifted.

For the first time, families are raising children inside digital environments designed to maximize engagement  and continuously compete for attention. Traditional parenting tools now operate against these systems that are created to keep children online for as long as possible.

What many parents experience as daily frustration is often not a parenting challenge. It is the result of an environment intentionally optimized to override the limits parents try to set.

What the Lawsuits Prove

For years, the harm caused by digital platforms was “alleged.” 

That is changing rapidly.

Between 2024 and 2026, a series of major lawsuits against companies including Meta, TikTok, Google, Character.AI and OpenAI have moved beyond accusation and into courtrooms where evidence is now being publicly examined.

These lawsuits all share something important: they don't blame a single video or post for harming a child. They blame how the apps themselves are built — the endless scroll, the recommendations that decide what your child sees next, the AI designed to keep them watching.

For years, companies argued they couldn't be held responsible for what users posted on their platforms. These cases now point to the design itself, the features built to capture and hold a child's attention. Courts are now increasingly letting those claims move forward. 

The courts, claims, design features and outcomes are laid out in Appendix A.

The Pattern

Across nearly every major lawsuit involving child safety and digital platforms, an alarming pattern continues to repeat itself.

  • Internal research identifies harm early.
  • Executives are made aware of developmental, psychological, and behavioral risks to minors.
  • Product teams continue implementing design choices that increase engagement despite those findings.
  • Public messaging continues emphasizing safety while internal evidence often tells a different story.

Only after years of public pressure do regulators or courts intervene.

When growth and user wellbeing compete, technology companies have repeatedly demonstrated which one wins. While accountability has almost always arrived only after harm has already occurred.

The Consent Parents Never Gave

At the center of nearly every child safety dispute in technology sits a deeper issue that receives far less attention: consent.

Modern internet platforms operate under the assumption that consent has been obtained simply because a user clicked “I agree.”

But clicking “I agree” was never meaningful consent.

Meaningful consent requires understanding consequences.

Yet most parents are never clearly told:

  • How algorithms shape what children see.
  • How behavioral data is continuously collected and analyzed.
  • How engagement systems are designed around psychological reward loops.
  • How platforms measure emotional responses, attention patterns, and behavioral tendencies to optimize retention.
  • How artificial intelligence systems increasingly personalize influence in ways families cannot see.

Parents were never fully informed about the environments their children were entering.

Will Anything Change?

What gets accepted today becomes the default tomorrow. 

The risks, the design choices and the outcomes are now well documented.

Much of what happens next will be shaped by a series of major bellwether cases already underway. The 2026 verdicts in K.G.M. v. Meta and State of New Mexico v. Meta were early signals.

Federal litigation is now accelerating through MDL 3047, where more than 2,600 cases against major tech companies have been consolidated, with the first federal bellwether trial beginning in June 2026.

The outcomes of these cases will help define the future relationship between families and technology.

At Permission, we closely monitor this litigation because it keeps returning to the same core truth: parents deserve to know what their children are actually consenting to — and children deserve to grow up in environments designed to support their development, not exploit their vulnerabilities.

Parents deserve to understand these environments while they are still evolving, not years later, after the consequences are already visible. And children deserve to grow up in environments designed to support their development, not exploit their vulnerabilities.

Learn more about why AI needs permission (and what it means for your family) at AI needs Permission. Permission is actively tracking this litigation and the broader shift it represents for families, AI, and the future of consent online.

Share Permission. Help Another Family.

May 26th, 2026
|
{time} read time

There's something that happens when Permission starts working for your family. You notice things earlier. Conversations get easier. The guesswork goes away.

And almost immediately, you think of another family who needs this.

Now there's a simple way to share it — and get rewarded when you do.

How It Works

Refer Permission to other parents. When three families subscribe through your unique referral link, you receive a $30 gift card — automatically, with no limit on how many times you can earn.**

It's straightforward:

  1. Get your unique referral link from your Permission account
  2. Share it with parents you think would benefit
  3. Once three families subscribe to a paid plan, your $30 gift card is on its way

That's it. No complicated tiers. No tracking spreadsheets. Just sharing something you believe in and being rewarded for it.

A Few Things to Know

  • Rewards are triggered by completed paid subscriptions — free trials don't count.
  • You'll receive a notification once your reward has been credited.
  • Gift cards are fulfilled via our rewards partner, Tremendous. Redemption availability may vary.
  • When sharing your referral link, please disclose that you may receive a reward if the person you refer subscribes. Example: "I use Permission and earn rewards when friends sign up through my link."
  • Program terms apply. See our Terms of Use for full details.

Why We Built This

Permission works best when it spreads the way trust does — through people who know each other.

Parents talk. They share what's working and what isn't. They ask each other for recommendations on everything from pediatricians to schools to apps. We'd rather reward that natural word-of-mouth than spend that money on ads.

When you refer a family to Permission, you're not just earning a gift card. You're helping another parent feel less alone in navigating their child's digital life.

Ready to Share?

Get your referral link → https://app.permission.ai/motivate

** Gift cards fulfilled via Tremendous. Referral rewards require completed paid subscriptions. Program terms apply. See Terms for full details.