Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 1 of 13

A zero-sum monetary system, interest rates, and implications.

Brian P. Hanley
Abstract
To the knowledge of the author, this is the first time it has been shown that interest
rates that are extremely high by modern standards (100% and higher) are necessary
within a zero-sum monetary system, and not just driven by greed. Extreme interest rates
that appeared in various places and times reinforce the idea that hard money may have
contributed to high rates of interest. Here a model is presented that examines the interest
rate required to succeed as an investor in a zero-sum fixed quantity hard-money system.
Even when the playing field is significantly tilted toward the investor, interest rates need
to be much higher than expected. In a completely fair zero-sum system, an investor
cannot break even without charging 100% interest. Even with a 5% advantage, an
investor won’t break even at 15% interest. From this it is concluded that what we
consider usurious rates today are, within a hard-money system, driven by necessity.
Cryptocurrency is a novel form of hard-currency. The inability to virtualize the
money creates a system close to zero-sum because of the limited supply design.
Therefore, within the bounds of a cryptocurrency system that limits money creation,
interest rates must rise to levels that the modern world considers usury. It is impossible,
therefore, that a cryptocurrency that is not expandable could take over a modern economy
and replace modern fiat currency.

JEL: E21, E22, E42, E51, G21, G29, G28
Keywords: loan shark, crypto-currency, cyber-currency, private currencies, alternative
currencies, zero-sum, jubilee, interest rate, interest rate setting, hard-money
Correspondence: Brian P. Hanley, Butterfly Sciences, California, USA
Email: brian.hanley@ieee.org

Zero-sum money and interest rates

1

Page 2 of 13

Introduction
Examining zero-sum monetary systems is interesting in the modern world because of

new cryptocurrencies that create electronic analogs of physical coin. Most of these
currencies are designed to create a limited amount of electronic coins, with the idea that
limited availability supports currency exchange price vis-à-vis existing currencies.
A system where interest is paid and the total amount of money is fixed is a zero-sum
game – for every winner that earns interest, there must be a loser who does not, because
new money is not created that allows interest or investment return payouts from any other
source. The game examined here is artificial, but it models an important sector of
monetary behavior – hard currency systems. Hard currency systems predate the invention
of banking and they have cropped up recently in most of the crypto-currencies, of which
Bitcoin is the most well-known example. This kind of monetary system has special issues
that are not commonly appreciated.
Interest rates have long been a topic of concern, as high interest rates have
historically been a way that the world’s poor are kept in poverty. This has led to the laws
against usury[1], and rules against lending for interest in some religions.
During periods when physical coin was the monetary system, the money supply was
sometimes rather inflexible. With money creation either barely keeping pace with
economic needs, or lagging behind, systems flirting with zero-sum money appeared,
though never in pure form.

1.1

History
Credit preceded physical coinage in the ancient world. Credit recorded in cuneiform

of ancient Sumer shows a thriving economy in which the money supply is not artificially
constrained, and while accounts were kept in units of silver, silver did not actually
circulate. It was, like modern money, a placeholder unit, an abstraction. Hard money coin
came into being to pay standing armies, so that the ruler would not need to be the sole
logistics and supply source, because coin created an instrument that could be used to pay
for anything, and turned the populace into a support system. Coins were also used by

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 3 of 13

governments to collect taxes sometimes, and forced the population to compete to get
them so that taxes could be paid, thus enforcing the value of the currency. [2]
“Hard money” (metal standard money) appeared in roughly 600 BC, and lasted until
600 AD, when coinage declined along with a drop in slavery. The idea then reappeared
and strengthened in the last 500 years with a boost from Locke in the 17th century[2].
Locke advised Isaac Newton to stick with gold and silver coins, even though the bullion
value of the coins was higher than face value. This was rather a disaster, because some
saw opportunity, for instance Scots ordered large amounts of coin from the mint, melted
it down and sold it back to the mint so the mint could fulfill their next order[3]. It is
curious that the mathematical genius of the age was unable to see the problem with such
simple arithmetic. But Sir Isaac Newton was convinced by Locke’s argument that metal
money should help establish a money based on natural law.
Thus, it appears that this idea of hard money, in which coins and gold are the only
“real currency” was imposed on the common man by rulers in 2 major periods. Even so,
credit was created in the form of things like split tally sticks, which were exchanged as
money up until 1826[4]. In the modern world, split tally sticks are similar to the practice
of endorsing a check over to someone else, who in turn endorses the check to another,
and so on.
So a true hard currency economy with a fixed quantity of coin is mostly fiction, even
in times when hard currency coin was limited, although limitations on hard currency did
create hardship, and there are reports of extreme interest rates in various countries and
time periods.

2

Simple zero-sum investor game.

This simple version of the zero-sum investor game introduces the problem. Let us play a
zero-sum game using small numbers of coins to examine the problem of interest rates. In
this game there are three players. An investor, A, a borrower, B, and a competitor, C. In
the game, players B and C will engage in transactions with each other. Player A provides
a loan to player B, at some interest rate. After some arbitrary number of transactions, we
stop the game and pay off player A. We will assume that all transaction outcomes are
equally likely in this version of the game.

Zero-sum money and interest rates
2.1

Page 4 of 13

Three player investment game.
The first version of the zero-sum game will start as shown in figure 1, with 10 coins

in the game. Player A has 5 coins. The other 5 coins are held by player C. Player B
receives a loan from player A. We will assume initially that player B and player C are
equally good at the game and that all outcomes are equally probable. This game assumes
no carryover from one round to the next. Each round of some arbitrary number of
transactions starts fresh.
Player A loans his 5 coins to player B with simple interest of 1 coin (20%) to be paid
at the end of each round of the game. Player A waits while player B transacts with player
C.
Figure 1: Simple 3 player game

If Player B makes at least a coin of net income, it must come from player C.
Conversely, if player C nets a coin, that will be at the expense of player B. Over half of
the ways this game can turn out have player B losing or breaking even. This is true
because there is only one break-even state, and the rest are evenly divided between wins
and losses for player B.
Player A has a serious problem. Player A has 5 ways to lose money, 1 way to make
nothing, and only 5 ways make money – but he only makes one coin each time. So, if
player A has 10 iterations of the game, and outcomes are evenly distributed, then he must
lose overall, as shown in Table 1.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 5 of 13

Table 1: Zero-sum coin game with 1 coin interest for 5 coins loaned.
Capital
Game

loaned to

Iteration

Player B

Game outcomes Player B
Player B Player C

Net

Player A
Win

Loss

Net

1

5

0

10

0

5

0

2

5

1

9

0

4

1

3

5

2

8

0

3

2

4

5

3

7

0

2

3

5

5

4

6

0

1

4

6

5

5

5

0

0

0

5

7

5

6

4

0

1

0

6

8

5

7

3

1

1

0

6

9

5

8

2

2

1

0

6

10

5

9

1

3

1

0

6

11

5

10

0

4

1

0

6

10

5

15

Totals

So, assuming both players are equally good, and outcomes distribute evenly, for every
5 coins player A can get in interest, he should lose 15 coins. What rational player would
loan money at 20% (e.g. 1 coin on a 5 coin loan) interest under these circumstances? He
is guaranteed to lose 3 times for every win. However, player B, the borrower, has net
positive outcome. It is a good deal for him.

What interest rate is needed for player A to break even on his investments? The
number is much higher than most would guess. Player A has to charge 100% interest to
break even in this game as seen in Table 2.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 6 of 13

Table 2: Coin game with 100% interest rate, 5 coins interest for 5 coins loaned.
Player A
Capital
Game

loaned to

Iteration

Player B

Game outcomes Player B
Player B Player C

Player A

Net

Win

Loss

Net

1

5

10

0

0

0

5

0

2

5

9

1

0

0

4

1

3

5

8

2

0

0

3

2

4

5

7

3

0

0

2

3

5

5

6

4

0

0

1

4

6

5

5

5

0

0

0

5

7

5

4

6

0

1

0

6

8

5

3

7

0

2

0

7

9

5

2

8

0

3

0

8

10

5

1

9

0

4

0

9

11

5

0

10

0

5

0

10

0

15

15

Totals

The simple interest has to be over 100% for Player A to average simple breakeven, if
both players start even. For player A, the investor, to win more than he loses over a large
number of rounds, the game must be skewed by having more upside possibility than
downside.

2.2

Multi-player game using Gaussian distribution.

Now let us look at a more realistic case with many players in the game. To do this we
will add the assumption that outcomes of many transactions of many players will follow a
Gaussian distribution that averages to zero. This model assumes that all players transact
freely, without hoarding, and that players include three classes that correspond to players
A, B and C.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 7 of 13

Figure 2: Gaussian weighted investment risk graph

2A: Gaussian distribution overlaid on linear plot of table 1. Black line is Gaussian distribution
with σ = 0.25, and μ = 0. Gray dashed line shows zero-sum risk/reward per table 2. Solid gray line
shows win limited to 20% over capital risked. Zero average (μ) of the Gaussian distribution
represents the odds of win or loss in any round between players are, on average, even.
2B: Combined equation 1 shows plot of Gaussian distribution and win/loss outcomes. Black line
is zero-sum risk of win vs. loss with no limit on investor return, up to the full amount of the
investment. Gray line shows win limited to 20% gain.
Dark gray region in both graphs is area of wins for player C. Light gray region is the area of wins
for player A.

1
e
 2



( x   )2
2 2
(1)

Equation 1: Gaussian black line in figure 2B. Where: x = loss or gain in the game.

Zero-sum money and interest rates
( x )
 1

2
I
e 2
  2


Page 8 of 13

2






(2)

Equation 2: Gray line in figure 2B. Where: I = simple interest, σ = standard
deviation, μ = mean/median/mode. Values: σ = 0.25, I = 0.2, and μ = 0.
The value of 0.25 was selected for σ because this produces an equation that allows us
to restrict our range between -1 and 1 and the elements beyond the range have virtually
no contribution.

2.3

Multi-player Gaussian game where μ varies in favor of player class B.
Figure 3: Gaussian weighted investment risk graph

3A: Equations 1 & 2 where I rate varies: 1%, 10%, 20%, and 50%. σ = 0.25, μ = 0.
3B: Equations 1 & 2 where μ varies: 0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1. σ = 0.25, I = 20%. If the area to the right
of the y axis up to the light gray curve is larger than the area shown in gray to the left of the y axis
then player A can consistently win.

Inspecting figure 3, one can see that even at 20% interest, by shifting the center of the
Gaussian curve to the right, the area under the interest curve becomes larger than the area
of wins for player C.
From equation 2, an equation that can tell us what the average fraction of capital loss
will be for a particular simple interest can be developed. Equation 3 represents dividing

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 9 of 13

the area of the gray region of figure 2B above zero (win) by the area of figure 2B below
zero (loss). Thus, we integrate over the region of the curves, and adjust so that anything
below one is a negative return, a loss. Equation 3 replaces individual players by classes of
players in each category.

( x   )2
I  1

2
  x
e 2
 0   2
 
0

1 x  


( x )
1 


1
2
dx   I 
e 2

  2
I


( x   )2 

1
2
e 2 dx

2


2

 
dx 
 
 
1
(3)

Equation 3: Where: I = Simple interest, σ = standard deviation, μ =
mean/median/mode.

Using Equation 3, we can see what average win/loss is expected for an interest rate
and the transaction unfairness. If the scales are unfairly tilted in favour of the player class
B that is backed by our investor class A, then investor class A can net a positive return.
By shifting the distribution to the positive side by rigging the game’s odds, an investor
can make money. Even so, this can only occur up to the limit of the money in the game.
The ability of an investor to win at this game requires a higher level of interest than one
might expect, even with significant “thumb on the scales” tilting to advantage the
investor.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 10 of 13

Figure 4: Gaussian loss versus return on zero-sum investment

μ = 0 to 10%, σ = 0.25, I = 1% to 160%.

3

Discussion
Without a mechanism to make credit available as needed, or the ability to otherwise

expand the money supply in concert with economic activity as China did by purchasing
the gold and silver from the new world[2], interest payments can only cannibalize other
lending to pay winners. There must be a loss for every gain earned in interest.
This conundrum means that in a zero-sum game, a rational player rigs the game, or
else charges outrageous amounts of interest/investment return. History has recorded that
both responses to investment risk have been common. Historical accounts of interest rates
far exceeding 100% exist, and often it is presumed that these interest rates were
necessarily evidence of greed without rationality.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 11 of 13

Even in a zero-sum game in which rationality and understanding is not assumed,
repeated iterations should evolve players who play the game according to winner’s rules.
We can see suggestions of this in past centuries in which usury was regularly attacked
and social rules made to control it. For instance, the ancient Jewish temple system had
periodic jubilees when all debts were forgiven[5]. The temple received tithes, so its
money supply was consistently replenished, allowing it to make hard currency loans.
Tithes allowed loan activity to continue in a zero-sum system that did not charge
excessive interest. The Babylonians had a similar tradition of hubullum masa'um
(washing away debt), Assyrians left records of debt forgiveness, as did many other rulers
and dynasties of ancient Mesopotamia[6].
Ancient Rome and Greece had common nominal rates on the order of 1% per month,
and sometimes loans were available as low as 4% per year. The Roman Empire, in its
peak, had nominal rates on the order of 1% per month, although rates exceeding the legal
limit of 12% occurred frequently[7].
How ancient Rome could have operated a presumed hard-money system with such
formally low interest rates can be looked at in several ways. First, there may have been a
significant difference between the nominal official interest rate in Rome and what
ordinary borrowers could get access to, just as there is today in our banking system, but
with larger differentials. There is evidence of this in Rome, Greece and England. In Julius
Caesar’s time, Brutus charged 48%, rates as high as 48% per month (10,900% per year)
are recorded in ancient Athens, and interest of 52%-120% per year was charged in 12th
century England[8]. Such rates are more consistent with the zero-sum game discussed
here.
Second, the Roman Empire was expanding for centuries, taking in new treasure from
conquered regions. For many years Greece also plundered, bringing back booty and
slaves, much as the Vikings did in Europe centuries later. With plunder providing
increases to the money supply, low cost slave labor, mining of precious metals, and
mostly restricting money to the citizen elite and an upper class of slaves, the money
supply could meet or exceed needs for long periods. This could create periods in which
an excess of hard-money obtained by plunder and seignorage would allow periods of low

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 12 of 13

interest rates in the core of the empire because, in effect, the money supply could be
managed for the elite.
Third, the wealthiest, most powerful class could afford to lose significant amounts of
money because the society was rigged to supply them with more. Private parties with
high levels of wealth could thus have been tied into the plunder system of various
empires.
Finally, there is evidence that deposits existed in Roman times, and perhaps some
degree of banking-like transactions[8]. It is plausible that the money supply due to money
creation in the modern sense may have been somewhat larger from time to time than the
hard-money supply because of the use of accountants and letters to exchange large
amounts of money that were inconvenient to transport physically.

4

Conclusion
The interest requirements for investors in limited hard-money systems are

considerably higher than most realize. Without corruption to rig the outcome, it is
impossible for an investor class to make money in a hard-money system that does not
have regular, managed, inflow of hard currency. Within that investor class, stochastic
variation will create winners and losers in a fair system, but the class as a whole will not.
Only within hard money systems that harvest a regular supply of new commodity money
(e.g. gold, silver, gemstones or other commodity money) and manage the release of that
money into their hard-currency system can interest rates fall below the 100% level and
reward investors as a class.
Cryptocurrencies are neo-coin systems created within the context of a more
sophisticated monetary mechanism of fiat currency and money creation by loans. The
inability to virtualize money prevents creation of new money by loans, so the
cryptocurrency system itself becomes zero-sum. Therefore, within the bounds of a
cryptocurrency system that limits money creation, interest rates must rise to levels that
the modern world considers usury. Consequently, it is impossible for such a system of
electronic coinage to expand and become the primary currency of any modern economy.

Zero-sum money and interest rates

Page 13 of 13

References

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]

Young F. (1977) Christian Attitudes to Finance in the First Four
Centuries, Epworth Review 4.3, . Epworth Review, 4:78-86 doi,
Graeber D. (2014) Debt: The First 5,000 Years. London: Melville House
Publishing p.^pp.38-40, 212, 309-310, 313, 401.
Gardiner G. (2006) The Evolution of Crediitary Structures and Controls. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan p.^pp.120-121.
Dickens C. (1855) Administrative Reform. In Speeches literary and social
by Charles Dickens. Edited by Shepherd RH. London, Piccadilly: John
Camden Hotten 133
(621 BC) Hebrew-English Bible. JPS 1917 Edition edn: Mechon Mamre
p.^pp.Deuteronomy 15:1-3, Leviticus 25:9.
Hudson M. (1992) The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations. In
Book The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations. City,
http://michael-hudson.com/1992/03/the-lost-tradition-of-biblical-debtcancellations/
Temin P. (2004) Financial Intermediation in the Early Roman Empire.
The Journal of Economic History, 64:705-733,
http://www.histecon.magd.cam.ac.uk/docs/temin.pdf
Homer S, Sylla R. (2005) A History of Interest Rates. 4th edn. Hoboken:
Rutgers University Press

