Money can be understood from an individual perspective as an abstract form of wealth. From a communal perspective, however, money is better regarded as a debt, a biophysical liability, a lien on future real income of the community. Proper recognition of this dual nature raises concerns over modern, aggressive practices of money creation. It provokes a general reassessment of current institutional agreements surrounding money. In this contribution, said agreements are shown to endow money with an unnatural power to preserve its function despite structural decay. The origin of money interest derives from such institutionally given, unnatural power, where it should be noted that interest itself leads to a strong temptation among entities with money issuance rights to issue more and more. Ultimately, considered together, the dual nature of money and the biophysical origin of money interest provoke the need for a societal reappraisal of which entities should properly be given the right to create money, and which are functioning as “legal counterfeiters”. If a transition towards a more sustainable, more equitable bioeconomy is to be realized one day, discussion over who those entities are and what their rightful role is must be reopened.

可以从个人的角度将金钱理解为一种抽象的财富形式。但是，从社区角度来看，钱最好被视为债务，生物物理责任，对社区未来实际收入的留置权。对这种双重性质的正确认识引起了人们对现代的，积极的创收行为的关注。它引发了对有关货币的现行机构协议的一般性重新评估。在这笔捐款中，上述协议显示出赋予货币以不自然的力量来维持其功能的能力，尽管其结构发生了衰变。货币利益的产生源于这种制度赋予的不自然的权力，应该指出的是，利息本身会导致具有货币发行权的实体之间越来越强烈的诱惑力。最终，综合考虑 货币的双重性质和货币利息的生物物理起源引发了对社会的重新评估的需要，即应该适当地赋予哪些实体创造货币的权利，以及哪些实体充当“合法造假者”。如果有一天要实现向更可持续，更公平的生物经济的过渡，则必须重新讨论那些实体是谁以及它们应扮演的正确角色。