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

What Is A (Crypto) Currency Anyway?

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

By the end of WWII, the German economy was wrecked. Germany was split into four zones under the military rule of the Americans, British, French, and Russians. Hitler’s Reichsmark was still in circulation but had been rendered almost worthless by massive inflation in the latter stages of the war.

Because Reichsmark notes bore the swastika, the Western administration withdrew them from circulation, replacing them with Allied Occupation Marks, printed in the US.

Getting this temporary new currency to circulate was not easy — so difficult in fact that a barter economy soon evolved with cigarettes as the currency.

This unusual situation happened almost naturally. In Germany smokers’ ration cards had been issued from 1940 onwards, limiting smokers to a mere 40 cigarettes per month. Since most smokers have a more substantial appetite than that, a black-market for cigarettes soon flourished.

When the war ended, cigarettes were the most effective currency because they were already circulating, the supply was limited, and they were regularly burned — damping down inflation.

In June 1948, the Deutsche Mark was launched, with an airdrop of 40 DM to every resident of West Germany. At last, there was a reliable currency in circulation and it forced the black market into swift retreat.

While cigarettes could never be a sustainable currency, it worked surprisingly well for a few years among a population of over 30 million.

What Makes a Currency Viable?

By definition a currency is a medium of exchange — it must be exchangeable for goods. Until the dawn of the digital world, this severely limited what could serve as a currency.

It couldn’t be something that decayed easily, or could be forged easily, or was too large or too heavy and, above and beyond those practical details, people who used it needed to have faith in it. These conditions reduce the possibilities of what can serve as a currency considerably.

Historically, until the invention of printing, there are few examples of money that was not coins of one kind or another, made from iron, bronze, silver, or gold. The invention of the coin is lost in history as also, surprisingly is the invention of the account. There is evidence from 30,000 years ago of the use of tally sticks, as a primitive form of accounting.

You can think in terms of “exchange money” (coins for buying things) and “account money”, which is a store of value managed by some organization you trust.

In ancient Egypt, Babylon, India, and China, temples and palaces often included commodity warehouses that issued “certificates of deposit” as a claim on goods stored there.

Also, there is the idea of legal tender. A currency is a legal tender if, by law, you cannot refuse it as payment. Such currency is, of course, only legal within a given jurisdiction.

Finally, a currency needs to have a relatively stable value so that it can act as a store of value and a metric of value. Currencies that fluctuate in value fail because they are not reliable either as a store or a metric of value.

To summarize, ideally, a currency has the following characteristics:

  1. It can be exchanged for goods or services, as the medium of exchange.
  2. It can be used as a currency of account (if an appropriate mechanism exists).
  3. It is proof against fraud.
  4. It is highly portable.
  5. It is legal tender.
  6. It is a store and metric of value.

De Facto Currency

In the 16th century, the circulation of gold and silver coinage constituted a near-global currency. It was in use across the Eurasian landmass from Scandinavia to Korea.

It was viable because the coins were valuable of themselves. There was minimal coin value inflation, the coins could be tested for fraud, and they didn’t need government validation. The coins were portable (within reason) and on the trading routes, secure banks existed where large holdings could be deposited.

Consequently, merchants had faith in such coinage, and it was used extensively — and for many years, even after paper currency was introduced.

At various points in history, currencies have emerged and survived without the need for government imposition. And it looks like it may be happening again.

Cryptocurrencies may evolve into de facto currencies, and there may be nothing governments can do to prevent it, short of martial law.

Let’s consider it point by point:

1. Are cryptocurrencies an effective medium of exchange?

Demonstrably so. A number of them: Ether, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, and others are used as money, by a growing band of consumers and retailers (mostly eRetailers).

Their value can be readily known 24/7 by reference to crypto markets. In fact, they have a distinct advantage in this as the cost of exchange is very low.

Faith in these currencies as a medium of exchange is established.

2. Can they also be a currency of account?

In reality that is their strength. The crypto wallet and its contents are one.

As such, a crypto wallet is a bank account, a debit card, and currency all rolled into one.

They are a currency of account that requires no trusted third party to manage the account.

3. Are cryptocurrencies proof against fraud?

The record cries “YES”, and so does the mathematics that spawned them.

As far as anyone knows, they are impossible to forge. As with any other currency, it can be stolen.

But crypto is by no means as easy to steal as banknotes, which belong to whoever holds them.

4. Is cryptocurrency portable?

Yes — highly portable, more so that gold or silver. They are as portable as, say, a mobile phone or a banknote. If not more so.

5. Is cryptocurrency legal tender?

Not in the sense that people are obliged to accept it in payment. However, because of the existence of various fast exchange capabilities and crypto debit cards, it is as good as legal tender as you can easily exchange it for legal tender.

6. Can cryptocurrencies be used as a store and metric of value?

This is where, at the moment, many cryptocurrencies fail. Their value (as expressed in local currency) fluctuates far too wildly. They will not become practical currencies until such fluctuations tamp down.

We Have Thought Long and Hard About This Problem

At Permission, we looked at it this way: Most of the popular cryptocurrencies are alternatives to fiat currencies — they provide payment mechanisms.

Our currency, the Permission token (ticker: ASK), is a utility token. As such it is more like air miles or other such loyalty tokens, which derive their value from the commercial ecosystem in which they circulate.

So our currency may be different.

Time will tell.

Recent articles

Your ASK Wallet, Now Powered by Coinbase

Sep 22nd, 2026
|
{time} read time

We've partnered with Coinbase to bring best-in-class wallet technology to our community.

Today we're updating the technology that powers your ASK wallet. Here's what's changing, what it means for you, and what stays exactly the same.

What's changing

We've moved your Permission wallet to Coinbase's platform. What that means in plain language is this: starting today, you are in full control of your ASK. When you click to send, redeem, or manage your balance, the transaction happens from your account, signed by your login. We no longer hold your wallet keys. Coinbase does, on your behalf, under your authority.

We chose Coinbase's embedded wallet specifically because it brings institutional-grade security to our users without requiring you to manage anything yourself. The infrastructure is Coinbase's. The wallet is yours.

Beyond the custody change, our users now have a wallet that can go wherever they go: exportable, cross-chain ready, and backed by a platform that serves millions of people around the world. We're proud to bring that to our community.

What it means to control your own keys

As Permission has grown, we felt strongly that your funds should be held by a platform built specifically for that purpose, with the security standards and regulatory rigor that come with it. Moving to Coinbase's embedded wallet reflects that commitment.

With today's change, Coinbase secures your private key inside their systems, and only your Permission login can authorize transactions. When you click to send or redeem ASK, the transaction is authorized by you, through your login. We are no longer part of that process.

What this means practically: your wallet operates on its own, independent of Permission. Treat your Permission login like you would a bank password. It is now the key to your wallet. If you ever want to take your wallet entirely outside of Permission, Coinbase supports key export and that option is yours.

What Coinbase sees

Because Coinbase is now part of the infrastructure, your email address, account identifier, and wallet information are shared with them for the purpose of operating the wallet. For details on how Coinbase handles this data, you can review their embedded wallet documentation and their privacy information.

For how Permission handles your data, our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy govern that relationship, as they always have.

What stays the same

Everything you experience in the app. Earning ASK, redeeming it, transferring it, viewing your balance, managing your family. None of that changes.

And, what does change, we're excited about: key export, cross-chain support, and institutional-grade security. These are capabilities that would have taken years to build in-house and that Coinbase has spent that time perfecting. We chose to partner with the best-in-class, and our product and users will be better for it.

If you have questions, support is always here.

The Permission Team 🤝

What Is Family Friendly AI™?

Sep 9th, 2026
|
{time} read time

Only 15% of people globally say they trust AI systems, and 72% of parents are concerned about AI’s impact on their children.

AI is quickly becoming part of everyday family life, but Big Tech wasn’t built with families in mind. Family Friendly AI is technology intentionally designed for families, giving parents visibility into their children’s digital lives, guidance when they need it, and tools to encourage positive behavior.

5 Things That Make AI Family Friendly

1. Your family owns its data.

‍Your family’s data is never sold. It belongs to your family, and you stay in control of it.

2. Parents know what’s happening online.

‍Family Friendly AI gives parents visibility into their children’s digital lives, helping them fully understand how their children use and interact with technology.

3. It motivates children with rewards and incentives.

‍Parents can set rewards and incentives to encourage positive behaviors and help their children build better habits around technology and beyond.

4. It gives parents coaching and inspiration.

‍Parenting in a digital world comes with challenges that screen-time limits alone can’t help with. Family Friendly AI gives parents personalized AI-insights and guidance to help them navigate what their children are doing online and decide what to do next.

5. It earns families' trust.

‍Technology for families should have a higher bar. The companies building it should stand behind it with an unconditional, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.

It’s time for AI, crypto, and the technology shaping our children’s lives to meet the family-friendly standard.

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?

‍