Ithaca Hours

Time-Based Local Currency

Time-based local currency launched 1991 in Ithaca, NY, where one Hour approximates local hourly wage.

Type	Time-Based Local Currency
Region	Ithaca, New York, USA
Status	Historical
Links	Website Wikipedia

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.3

Minimally aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.4

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability1.8

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.6

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.0

Stability2x

1.6

Fia Ind & Int2x

2.4

Traction2x

2.0

Sovereignty

1.9

Governance

1.9

Resilience

1.7

Inclusivity

3.8

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Strongest category: Inclusivity (3.8)Ithaca Hours was remarkably egalitarian for its time. Equal listing grants, zero transaction fees, identical rules for all participants, and broad seigniorage distribution to community nonprofits make it one of the most inclusive monetary designs ever implemented. This is where the project most closely aligns with the M69 vision.

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.6)The fixed $10 USD peg, set in 1991 and never adjusted, means the HOUR's real purchasing power roughly halved over the project's lifetime due to inflation. The system had no mechanism to address this drift, no measurement methodology, and no awareness of the distinction between nominal stability and purchasing power stability.

The founder-dependency paradox is the defining lesson.Glover's personal dedication built the system, but that same dependency destroyed it when he left. This is the clearest real-world demonstration of key-person risk in monetary systems. The project's Resilience (1.7) and Sovereignty (1.9) scores reflect this structural vulnerability.

The dual unit of account (1 hour of labor AND $10 USD) created an unresolved tension.The time-labor definition was philosophically sovereign and M69-aligned, but the simultaneous USD peg undermined it. Over 30+ years of inflation, these two definitions diverged dramatically, and the system had no mechanism to reconcile them. This tension between fiat convenience and monetary sovereignty is instructive for future projects.

Historically influential but operationally dead.The project earned a perfect score on TR-02 (longevity: 34 years of existence), TR-08 (academic recognition), and TR-09 (organic adoption), yet scores 1 on TR-01 (currently defunct), TR-03 (no active users), TR-04 (no merchants), and TR-10 (declining). This gap between historical significance and current relevance is the project's central tragedy.

Big takeaway: Ithaca Hours proves that philosophical alignment with sound money principles is necessary but not sufficient.Without technological enforcement, sustainable funding, and institutional resilience, even the most community-rooted monetary experiment will die with its founder. Future M69-aligned projects should study this case as a cautionary tale about what happens when money design is strong but architecture is absent.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Ithaca Hours is one of the oldest and most well-known local currencies in the United States, founded in November 1991 by Paul Glover in Ithaca, New York. The system is a paper-based time currency where one HOUR equals approximately one hour of basic labor or $10 USD. At its peak in the late 1990s, over 500 businesses and 1,000 individuals participated, with an estimated $110,000 in circulation generating several million dollars in total transactions. New HOURS entered circulation primarily through listing grants (2 HOURS per participant for joining the directory) and community grants to nonprofit organizations. The currency was managed initially by Glover, then by the nonprofit Ithaca Hours, Inc. after its 1998 incorporation. From an M69 alignment perspective, Ithaca Hours demonstrates notable strengths in its issuance model and cultural identity. Its supply creation is entirely debt-free, tied to real community participation, and features a simple, elegant design. The currency's unit of account is hybrid — defined as one hour of labor but simultaneously pegged at $10 USD, creating an inherent tension between sovereignty and fiat dependency. The project inspired dozens of similar currencies worldwide and generated significant academic attention, including a Cornell University study and multiple peer-reviewed papers. However, the system is now largely defunct. The currency is no longer in active circulation, the official website is inoperational, and modernization attempts around 2019 failed. Founder Paul Glover relocated from Ithaca, removing the project's primary evangelist. The system never transitioned from paper to digital, lacks any technological enforcement of monetary rules, and operates with a fully custodial, geographically restricted, non-private model. As a historical community currency, Ithaca Hours scores well on philosophical alignment with M69's debt-free vision but poorly on sovereignty, governance, resilience, and current traction — the project is effectively a historical artifact rather than a living monetary system.

Issuance Model3x

3.0

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Restricted issuance. New HOURS were created and distributed by Ithaca Hours, Inc. (initially Paul Glover, later an elected board). Participants received 2 HOURS for listing in the directory and could apply for additional HOURS every 8 months. Community grants were decided by the governing board. Issuance was rule-based but controlled by a single organization. [1][2]	2
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism whatsoever. HOURS are created as grants — listing grants to participants and community grants to nonprofits. There is no borrowing, collateralization, or lending involved in the creation of new currency. The system also provided interest-free loans in HOURS, but issuance itself is purely debt-free. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Partially linked. Issuance is tied to community participation — receiving 2 HOURS for joining the directory is linked to economic willingness to transact. However, the trigger is directory listing, not actual economic output. Community grants go to nonprofits doing community work. Some discretion and human input remains in grant decisions. [1][2]	3
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?No hard cap, but supply expansion is conservative and deliberate. New HOURS enter circulation through listing grants (2 HOURS per participant, refreshable every 8 months) and community grants. There is no algorithmic elasticity; expansion depends on new participants and board decisions. Contraction is not built in — supply only grows. [1][2]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?No formal contraction mechanism. Paper HOURS can be lost, damaged, or accumulate in businesses that cannot spend them (the "business backlog" problem). There is no burn, redemption, or systematic supply reduction. Supply is monotonically increasing by design. Notes naturally exit circulation through loss and damage, but this is not a designed mechanism. [1][2]	2

Spending Power Stability2x

1.6

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?No explicit stability mechanism. The system relies on the implicit stability of the time unit (1 HOUR = 1 hour of labor) and a fixed $10 USD equivalence. There is no algorithmic adjustment, no rebase, and no protocol-level mechanism to respond to changes in purchasing power. Supply is adjusted only by the rate of new participant listings. [1][2]	1
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?Dual reference: one hour of basic labor AND $10 USD. The labor-time reference is a meaningful anchor to productive capacity, but the simultaneous USD peg undermines it — the $10 equivalence was set in 1991 and never adjusted for inflation. This creates a widening gap between the time-value claim and real purchasing power over 30+ years. The USD reference provides moderate stability but with meaningful inflation. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No published methodology for stability measurement exists. The $10 = 1 HOUR equivalence is a fixed assertion, not a measured or audited figure. There is no transparency about whether this peg has held in practice, no reporting on purchasing power deviation, and no mechanism for external verification. [1]	1
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?The $10 fixed value was set in 1991. Over 30+ years, US inflation has eroded this value significantly — $10 in 1991 is equivalent to roughly $22 in 2024. The HOUR's purchasing power has roughly halved while the nominal value stayed fixed. No track record of stability maintenance exists because no adjustment was ever made. [1]	2
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?Neither addressed. The time-based unit avoids short-term market volatility (no trading, no price feeds), but the fixed $10 peg means long-term purchasing power drift is entirely unaddressed. The design conflates nominal stability ($10 forever) with purchasing power stability. [1][2]	2
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?Ithaca-only system by design. The currency functions exclusively in the Ithaca, New York area. No geographic reach beyond a single small city. Not accessible to external participants. [1][2]	1

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

2.4

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?Hybrid unit. Officially defined as one hour of basic labor, but simultaneously pegged at $10 USD. Prices in the Ithaca community were quoted in HOURS but with the understanding that 1 HOUR = $10. The dual definition means the unit is partially sovereign (time-based) but functionally soft-pegged to the dollar. [1][2]	2
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?No reserves or collateral whatsoever. Ithaca Hours has no backing — it is a pure fiat community currency backed by community trust and acceptance, not by any reserves. There are zero fiat or non-fiat reserves. This is technically zero fiat exposure in collateral, since there is no collateral at all. [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?Minimal banking dependency. The Alternatives Federal Credit Union accepted HOURS deposits and paid fees in HOURS, but the core system operated as peer-to-peer paper exchange without requiring banking. The Credit Union was a supporting feature, not a dependency. [1][2]	4
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?No price feeds or oracles exist. The system has no on-chain or off-chain data feeds. The $10 USD equivalence is a static convention, not a dynamically maintained peg. There is no feed infrastructure at all — analog system with a fixed assertion. [1][2]	1
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?The system references the USD at $10 per HOUR. If the USD collapsed, the time-value definition (1 hour of labor) would persist, but the $10 equivalence would become meaningless. Since businesses accepted HOURS alongside USD at a fixed ratio, a dollar collapse would cause significant confusion. The time-labor basis provides a recovery path but no defined migration mechanism exists. [1][2]	3
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No transition plan. The $10 = 1 HOUR peg was set at founding and never revisited. There was no roadmap to reduce fiat dependency, no milestones for independence, and no consideration of a post-fiat operating mode. The fiat equivalence was treated as permanent. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?Ithaca Hours inspired many local currencies (Madison Hours, Santa Barbara, Corvallis, etc.) but these were independent implementations, not denominated in or settling against Ithaca Hours. No composability mechanism exists. The system is monolithic — designed for a single community with no interoperability layer. [1][2]	1
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No open standards. Glover published a "Hometown Money Starter Kit" to help other communities create their own local currencies, which is a form of knowledge sharing. However, there is no technical standard for cross-system settlement, exchange rate discovery, or mutual recognition. Each inspired system operated independently. [1][2]	2

Traction2x

2.0

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Defunct. The currency is no longer in active circulation. The official website is inoperational. Modernization attempts around 2019 failed. A successor currency (Ithacash) launched in 2015 but Ithaca Hours itself is historically significant only. [1][2]	1
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Founded November 1991 — over 34 years of existence. Active circulation lasted roughly 20 years (1991 to ~2011). Even counting only the active period, this exceeds 10 years. [1][2]	5
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?Currently near zero active users. At peak (late 1990s), over 1,000 individuals participated. No measurable active user base exists today. [1][2]	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?Currently near zero. At peak, approximately 500 businesses accepted HOURS, including Cayuga Medical Center, the Alternatives Federal Credit Union, farmers, restaurants, and various service providers. No meaningful merchant acceptance today. [1][2]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?At peak, HOURS were used as a unit of account within the Ithaca community — goods and services were priced in HOURS in the directory, at the farmers market, and by participating businesses. However, fiat denomination remained dominant and HOURS always carried the $10 USD equivalence. Currently not used as unit of account at all. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Paul Glover relocated from Ithaca and is no longer actively working on Ithaca Hours. He transferred management to the elected board in 1999, but the board itself has become inactive. Glover continued consulting on local currencies generally but not on Ithaca Hours specifically. [1][2]	1
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?At peak: Alternatives Federal Credit Union (accepted deposits), Cayuga Medical Center, Sciencenter museum, GreenStar Cooperative, and numerous local businesses. Multiple institutional partners across sectors. Currently, no active partnerships remain. Historically scoring this at 4 for past partnerships, but the question asks about current state. [1][2]	2
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Extensive coverage. Peer-reviewed academic research (David Grover 2006 in Environment and Planning C; Jacob et al. 2004 in IJCCR), Cornell University study finding $2M in increased local spending, NPR coverage, major media attention, and cited in policy discussions about community currencies. A landmark case study in the field. [1][2][3]	5
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption was highly organic. Users participated out of genuine belief in local economics and community values. The 2 HOURS listing grant was a minor incentive, but the 2002 survey found average involvement duration of 8 years and half used HOURS as a primary income source. No mandates, no speculative incentives. [1][2]	5
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?Sharp decline to effective zero. The project has been dormant since approximately 2011. No growth in any dimension over the past 12 months. The system is heading toward (or has already reached) complete abandonment. [1]	1
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Strong founding narrative. Glover's vision of community economics, fair trade, and ecological harmony was well-articulated. The currency featured local artwork and even honored local figures. Residents described HOURS as representing resistance to dehumanizing effects of the global economy. However, cultural identity did not survive the founder's departure — proving it was personality-dependent rather than institutionally embedded. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

1.9

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?Yes. The project was effectively shut down by the departure of its founder. The elected board of Ithaca Hours, Inc. was a single organizational entity that controlled all operations. Local government, law enforcement, or the IRS could also have shut it down. A single entity (the board, or even the founder) could and did effectively end the system. [1][2]	1
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Not applicable in traditional sense. The system is paper-based with no software infrastructure. Glover published a "Hometown Money Starter Kit" enabling other communities to replicate the model. The design is open and copyable but there is no software stack to self-host. In analog terms, anyone can print their own local currency following the published model. [1][2]	3
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Fully dependent on US jurisdiction. Ithaca Hours, Inc. is a New York State nonprofit. HOURS are taxable under US federal law when used for professional goods and services. The project cannot operate without US legal permission. [1][2]	1
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Interesting hybrid. Users physically hold paper HOURS — this is self-custody of the physical notes. However, the Alternatives Federal Credit Union offered HOURS deposits, which was custodial. For the majority of users, HOURS were bearer instruments (like cash) held directly. The listing system and directory were centrally controlled but the currency itself was bearer. [1][2]	3
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Extremely high key-person risk, proven by events. Glover himself stated that "every local currency needs at least one full-time networker." When he left Ithaca, the system deteriorated rapidly despite the elected board structure. The project was effectively that individual. [1][2]	1
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?The system depended on printing services, the newsletter Ithaca Money for directory publication, and the Alternatives Federal Credit Union for deposits. These are third-party dependencies that could be (and were) disrupted. When organizational support faltered, the system could not adapt. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?Paper currency is inherently censorship-resistant at the transaction level — once you hold a note, you can give it to anyone. No blacklist or freeze capability exists for circulating notes. However, the directory listing (which drove participation) was centrally controlled, and being delisted would effectively exclude a participant from the network. [1][2]	3
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Paper cash transactions are inherently private — no digital trail, no surveillance capability. Transaction amounts and parties are known only to the transacting parties. However, directory participation required publishing your name, phone number, and services in Ithaca Money. Privacy was strong for transactions but weak for participation. [1][2]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?No technological enforcement. Monetary rules (issuance amounts, grant decisions, who gets listed) were entirely policy-based, changeable at the board's discretion. The board could print more HOURS, change grant amounts, or modify rules without any technical constraint. Rules were social norms enforced by trust, not code. [1][2]	1

Governance

1.9

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Evolved from unilateral founder decisions to an elected board after 1998 incorporation. Board of Directors elections began in March 1999 with term limits. However, governance was inconsistently applied — major decisions were still informal, and the board struggled to function effectively after Glover's departure. Mix of formal and ad-hoc decision-making. [1][2]	3
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Decision power held by a small elected board of directors of Ithaca Hours, Inc. Board size is not documented in available sources but governance structures of similar small nonprofits typically involve 5-10 people. Initially, Glover held unilateral power. After incorporation, a small board controlled all decisions. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?Governance outcomes were partially public through the Ithaca Money newsletter and community meetings ("Barter Potluck"). However, deliberation was informal, monetary mechanism details (exactly how many HOURS were printed, grant decisions) were not systematically documented in public archives. No formal audit trail. Some decisions disclosed after the fact. [1][2]	2
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Already captured in the sense that a small board controlled everything. With Glover's departure, governance effectively ceased. A small group could easily dominate the nonprofit board. No anti-capture mechanisms existed. [1][2]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?Changes were discussed at community meetings and Barter Potluck gatherings, then executed by the board or Glover. No formal proposal process, no voting on changes, no time-locks. Community could comment but decisions were made informally. The 2002 addition of the 1/10 HOUR denomination was driven by retailer feedback, showing some responsiveness. [1][2]	2
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No distinction. The same board (or Glover personally) made all decisions — from printing new denominations to grant allocations to directory management. Monetary policy (how many HOURS to issue) could be changed as easily as operational decisions. [1][2]	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?Ithaca Hours, Inc. has articles of incorporation as a New York nonprofit, which include a stated mission. Glover articulated principles of fair trade, local economic empowerment, and ecological harmony. However, these were not formally protected from override — they were informal values, not constitutional constraints. [1][2]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?The board could change issuance rules (grant amounts, issuance frequency, denominations) at any time through normal board decisions. No special protection for monetary policy. The 1/10 HOUR denomination was added by board decision in 2002. Issuance rules changeable by a small board with limited community input. [1][2]	2

Resilience

1.7

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?The project effectively failed under its primary stress test — the departure of its founder. Glover's relocation caused a slow collapse of the system. The 2008 financial crisis, which could have been an opportunity for local currency adoption, instead coincided with further decline. The system did not survive its key-person loss. [1][2]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Minimal redundancy. The system relied on a single newsletter (Ithaca Money), a single organizational entity (Ithaca Hours, Inc.), a single credit union partner, and a single set of printing equipment. When the organizational infrastructure faltered, no fallback existed. [1][2]	1
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Partial recovery possible. Glover published the Hometown Money Starter Kit, and the design is simple enough that anyone could theoretically restart a local HOURS system. However, the critical asset — community participation and merchant network — cannot be recovered from documentation. The 2019 revival attempt failed, demonstrating that recovery is theoretically possible but practically very difficult. [1][2]	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?Extremely simple and elegant. The core mechanism is describable in one sentence: participants receive HOURS for joining and spend them at local businesses. Denominations, printing, and distribution are straightforward. New contributors can understand and participate within minutes. One of the simplest monetary designs ever created. [1][2]	5
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Paper printing technology is ancient and universally available — unlikely to become obsolete. However, the system's reliance on paper currency became a liability as society shifted to electronic payments. The technology itself is durable, but the medium (physical cash) became obsolete relative to user expectations. Paradoxically technology-agnostic but killed by technological change. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?No explicit stress mechanisms. The fixed $10 peg means the system imports USD inflation without adjustment. No circuit breakers, no dynamic parameters, no orderly wind-down procedures. The "business backlog" problem (businesses accumulating HOURS they cannot spend) was a persistent liquidity issue with no designed solution. The system breaks under the most basic economic stress. [1][2]	1
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?No sustainable funding model. The project ran on volunteer effort and Glover's personal dedication. The nonprofit had no endowment, no protocol fees, and no revenue model. Directory listings were $1, which covered printing costs at best. When volunteer energy dissipated, the system collapsed. [1][2]	1
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Paper currency inherently operates in a disconnected, high-latency environment. No internet required. Notes function as bearer instruments with no connectivity dependency. The design could theoretically function across centuries if the organizational infrastructure were maintained. Strong on latency tolerance, weak on organizational durability. [1][2]	4
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?System requires human identity verification (directory listing with name and phone number) and manual processes (physical note exchange) for core functions. Machine participation is impossible — the system is entirely analog with no programmable interfaces. [1][2]	1

Inclusivity

3.8

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Geographically restricted to Ithaca, New York. Within that community, participation was open to anyone — no minimum balance, no nationality restriction, no credit check. However, it was intentionally local. A non-Ithaca resident could not meaningfully participate. Within Ithaca, the $1 directory listing fee was the only barrier. [1][2]	3
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?$1 to list in the directory, after which participants received 2 HOURS ($20 value) for free. Zero transaction fees for HOURS exchanges. No minimum balance required. Effectively zero cost — participants received more value than they paid to join. [1][2]	5
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?The system was accessible to unbanked individuals — no bank account needed, no credit check, paper cash format. The 2002 survey showed participants had "modest incomes." The design philosophy emphasized economic equality. However, critics noted it became a "hobby for white, middle-class individuals" rather than reaching truly financially excluded populations. [1][2]	3
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Benefits were broadly distributed. All participants received equal listing grants (2 HOURS). Approximately 11% of issued HOURS went as grants to community organizations. Interest-free loans were available. No insider advantages, no founder allocation, no venture capital participation. Seigniorage (new HOURS creation) flowed to participants and community nonprofits. [1][2]	4
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?All participants operated under identical rules. Everyone received the same 2 HOURS listing grant, the same 8-month renewal period, and the same $10 per HOUR exchange rate. No tiered access, no preferential rates, no special privileges for any class of user. One of the most egalitarian monetary systems ever designed. [1][2]	5
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Directory listing required name and phone number (published in Ithaca Money). No government ID or KYC required. However, published directory created a public record of participation. Transactions themselves were private (paper cash), but directory participation was not. Light identity requirement — phone number, not government ID. [1][2]	3
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?The equal listing grant (same amount regardless of wealth) is a mild anti-concentration feature. The currency's design for spending rather than saving discouraged hoarding. No interest or staking rewards meant no compound wealth accumulation. However, no active anti-concentration mechanism (no demurrage, no progressive fees) existed. Passive features discourage concentration but do not prevent it. [1][2]	3

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Ithaca Hours and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Ithaca Hours?

Restricted issuance. New HOURS were created and distributed by Ithaca Hours, Inc. (initially Paul Glover, later an elected board).

How does Ithaca Hours maintain stable spending power?

No explicit stability mechanism. The system relies on the implicit stability of the time unit (1 HOUR = 1 hour of labor) and a fixed $10 USD equivalence. There is no algorithmic adjustment, no rebase, and no protocol-level mechanism to respond to changes in purchasing power.

Is Ithaca Hours independent from fiat currencies?

Hybrid unit. Officially defined as one hour of basic labor, but simultaneously pegged at $10 USD. Prices in the Ithaca community were quoted in HOURS but with the understanding that 1 HOUR = $10.

Who controls Ithaca Hours and can it be shut down?

Yes. The project was effectively shut down by the departure of its founder. The elected board of Ithaca Hours, Inc.

How widely adopted is Ithaca Hours today?

Currently near zero active users. At peak (late 1990s), over 1,000 individuals participated. No measurable active user base exists today.

Is Ithaca Hours still active and growing?

Defunct. The currency is no longer in active circulation. The official website is inoperational.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Ithaca Hours?

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.6): The fixed $10 USD peg, set in 1991 and never adjusted, means the HOUR's real purchasing power roughly halved over the project's lifetime due to inflation. The system had no mechanism to address this drift, no measurement methodology, and no awareness of the distinction between nominal stability and purchasing power stability.

What makes Ithaca Hours unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Inclusivity (3.8): Ithaca Hours was remarkably egalitarian for its time. Equal listing grants, zero transaction fees, identical rules for all participants, and broad seigniorage distribution to community nonprofits make it one of the most inclusive monetary designs ever implemented. This is where the project most closely aligns with the M69 vision.

How is Ithaca Hours's M69 Score calculated?

Ithaca Hours scores 2.3/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.4, Civilizational Durability 1.8, Universal Adoption 2.6. Strongest: Inclusivity (3.8). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.6).