Can cryptocurrencies ever be recorded in a World Balance Sheet?  Let's look at some of the key features of Bitcoin, as an example of a cryptocurrency:
According to wikipedia:

• Bitcoin does not have a central authority.[8]
• There is no central server; the bitcoin network is peer-to-peer.[16]
• There is no central storage; the bitcoin ledger is distributed.[130]
• The ledger is public; anybody can store it on their computer.[7]:ch. 1
• There is no single administrator;[8] the ledger is maintained by a network of equally privileged miners.[7]:ch. 1
• Anybody can become a miner.[7]:ch. 1
• The additions to the ledger are maintained through competition. Until a new block is added to the ledger, it is not known which miner will create the block.[7]:ch. 1
• The issuance of bitcoins is decentralized. They are issued as a reward for the creation of a new block.[105]
• Anybody can create a new bitcoin address (a bitcoin counterpart of a bank account) without needing any approval.[7]:ch. 1
• Anybody can send a transaction to the network without needing any approval; the network merely confirms that the transaction is legitimate.

Although Bitcoin is (in theory) decentralised, wikipedia also says:

"As of 2013 just six mining pools controlled 75% of overall bitcoin hashing power.[134] In 2014 mining pool Ghash.io obtained 51% hashing power which raised significant controversies about the safety of the network. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and requested other pools to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network.[135] c. 2017 over 70% of the hashing power and 90% of transactions were operating from China."

Bitcoin isn't backed by any assets in the real world.  Therefore, even though it is said that their design and implementation will result in a maximum of 21 million Bitcoins ever being created, they are only ever going to have a value determined by owners' and users' perceptions of value, not any related underlying value of real assets in the real world.  This makes them even more ethereal than any national currency anywhere in the world, which at least has the benefit of some asset backing (albeit on a fractional banking ratio) underwritten by a real-world institution such as a national central bank.

The risks associated with recognising the value of Bitcoins should be fairly obvious from this.  There can be no confidence that their supposed value will continue to exist, and at any point they might become valueless.  There is no authoritative body that can be called upon to take any action to stabilise the value of Bitcoins.  Indeed, there is a risk that any such putative body that purported to be able to do so could be a fictitious body, or a legitimate body acting fraudulently or negligently. 

Exchanging any real-world national currency, or other assets, for Bitcoins represents, therefore, nothing more than pure speculation on the future value of an imaginary asset.  For this reason alone "I'm out!" and I will not be recommending inclusion of any cryptocurrencies in the World Balance Sheet. 

    

Yesterday,  I participated in this online meeting and discussion.  There were talks by Ben Caldecott and Anna Olerinyova, followed by Q and A.  I found this a fascinating discussion.
 
There is one exchange in the chat that I’d like to follow up on.   
 
At one point, another participant and I had a brief exchange about Steady State Economy, and they signposted a paper:  “Another reason why a steady-state economy will not be a capitalist economy”, by Ted Trainer [University of New South Wales, Australia]
 
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue76/Trainer76.pdf
 
The central tenet of Trainer’s paper was to say that Herman Daly had said that capitalism could not exist in a steady state economy unless there was considerable decoupling of economic growth from material throughput.  The following is a quote from the paper:
 
“... Daly’s case that a steady-state economy can remain capitalist depends entirely on the assumption that there is considerable scope for technical advance to enable productivity gains and decoupling, and for this to continue indefinitely”
 
Trainer seems to be arguing that steady state economics is not enough, and supports an alternative called The Simpler Way, and that might be why he has taken quite a negative view on the supposed inconsistencies between Daly’s steady state economics and capitalism:.  From Trainer’s paper (I have emboldened the most relevant text):
 
“It should be evident from the above discussion that it is not sufficient merely to take a steady-state economy as the goal. When the seriousness of the limits to growth is understood, as the above multiples make clear, it is obvious that a sustainable and just society must have embraced large scale de-growth. That is, it must be based on per capita resource use rates that are a small fraction of those typical of rich countries today; it must in other words be some kind of Simpler Way. (For the detail see TSW: The Alternative.)”
 
 
I’ve found a different source (Wikipedia) that suggests that this is perhaps a rather extreme interpretation of what Daly actually believes (or, at least, believed in 1980) – in which I’ve emboldened the most relevant text:
 
“Fully aware of the massive growth dynamics of capitalism, Herman Daly on his part poses the rhetorical question whether his concept of a steady-state economy is essentially capitalistic or socialistic. He provides the following answer (written in 1980):’The growth versus steady-state debate really cuts across the old left-right rift, and we should resist any attempt to identify either growth or steady-state with either left or right, for two reasons. First, it will impose a logical distortion on the issue. Second, it will obscure the emergence of a third way, which might form a future synthesis of socialism and capitalism into a steady-state economy and eventually into a fully just and sustainable society’. Daly concludes by inviting all (most) people — both liberal supporters of, and radical critics of, capitalism — to join him in his effort to develop a steady-state economy.”

Thought this might be useful as a counter, from Herman Daly himself, to what Trainer claims about him.

The Planetary CFO has published a first book, titled "Peak XXXX: Infinite Possibilities on a Finite Planet". 
This is a high-altitude fly-by of most of the key sustainability challenges and opportunities on the way to creating a just and sustainable future for everyone.  From the imaginary overview from the stratosphere, I helicopter down into a few of the most exciting topics (and some technical ones, I have to warn you) and string them together with sustainability glue.  I hope you enjoy it, and can get something from it. 

It can be bought on Amazon at the following link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peak-XXXX-Infinite-Possibilities-Version/dp/B089TV3GBW/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=peak+xxxx&qid=1595331694&s=books&sr=1-1

I've been busy for a while, writing, but now I feel I should add to my blog.  I'll tell you about my first book in my next post .  In the meantime, the Planetary CFO is back in action.