Who gets to reverse a decision?

In this essay, I ask what happens to people who still need cash as the infrastructure supporting it disappears. Once that network is gone, choosing cash again may no longer be possible.

THE PROJECT, AT A GLANCE

MY CONTRIBUTION: I wrote the essay and its argument about payment infrastructure, exclusion and the difficulty of restoring a cash network.
WHAT HAPPENED: The argument asks who retains the option to go back when a cash network disappears. The original essay includes the full reasoning and references.
NEXT TO TEST OR DEVELOP: Examine what evidence would justify withdrawing a fallback that some people still depend on.

Read the project Read the original essay

MARGINALIA / 2026The option
to go back.ON CASH, INFRASTRUCTURE & IRREVERSIBILITY

THE OPTION TO GO BACKAN AUTHORED ARGUMENT

Why going back could be difficult.

The essay applies the idea of irreversibility to payment infrastructure. Once a cash network loses the usage needed to sustain it, rebuilding it requires more than a change in individual preference.

“Consider what it would take to rebuild a cash network after the last ATM has gone dark.”From the original essay

Who is affected?

The argument asks how an apparently efficient transition affects people who rely on the older infrastructure. Aggregate adoption can conceal whether the replacement is usable by everyone who needs it.

Read the essay.

This is an authored policy essay, not an original empirical study of payment systems. Its references and full reasoning are available in the original PDF.

WHAT I TAKE FROM IT

I argue that keeping a usable cash option matters for people who cannot rely on digital payments.

STILL OPEN

What evidence should be required before removing a public fallback?

READ FURTHER

Read the original essay ↗

Should We Fear a Cashless Society? · 2026 · PDF

NEXT PROJECT / 01

When is more computation actually worth it?

↗