Leu (Zürich)

Community Currency

Local complementary currency for Zürich promoting sustainable local commerce and community connection in the city.

Type	Community Currency
Region	Zürich, Switzerland
Status	Active
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment3.3

Partially aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty3.4

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

Civilizational Durability3.0

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption3.2

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

4.2

Stability2x

1.8

Fia Ind & Int2x

3.9

Traction2x

2.7

Sovereignty

3.5

Governance

3.6

Resilience

1.9

Inclusivity

4.1

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

Key Findings

Strongest category: Issuance Model (4.2)Leu's issuance design is remarkably aligned with M69 values. Debt-free creation through Proof-of-Personhood, elastic supply via demurrage, population-proportional issuance, and zero collateral make it one of the most M69-native issuance models assessed. The mechanism of tying money creation to human participation rather than capital is philosophically and structurally distinctive.

Strongest category: Inclusivity (4.1)Equal UBI distribution, zero entry cost, no identity documents required, one-person-one-vote governance, and aggressive anti-concentration via demurrage make Leu the most structurally egalitarian monetary system in the ratings so far. Seigniorage flows equally to all participants rather than to capital providers or insiders.

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.8)Leu has no stability mechanism whatsoever. The 1:1 CHF convention is social, not algorithmic. The 5.6% monthly demurrage means the currency loses over 50% of its value annually for holders. There is no benchmark, no targeting mechanism, and no track record of price stability. This is the most fundamental gap in the design from an M69 perspective.

Weakest category: Resilience (1.9)The project has never faced a major crisis, depends on Kusama infrastructure that could become obsolete, has no self-sustaining funding model (relying on Kusama Treasury grants), and its ceremony mechanism is incompatible with high-latency or disconnected environments. The PoP design also intentionally excludes AI agents from issuance.

Key tension: Architectural excellence vs. adoption realityLeu scores well on design dimensions (issuance, governance, inclusivity, fiat independence) but poorly on evidence dimensions (traction, stability track record, resilience). It is an exceptionally well-designed system with fewer than 200 active users and 25 businesses. The gap between architectural ambition and real-world adoption is the defining tension.

Big takeawayLeu/Encointer represents the closest architectural alignment with M69 values seen in a live complementary currency — debt-free UBI issuance, on-chain democratic governance, open-source non-custodial design, and zero fiat dependency. But it remains a small community experiment in Zürich with minimal traction and no proven stability mechanism. For M69, Encointer's protocol design is a reference implementation worth studying and potentially building upon, but the Leu community itself needs to demonstrate that this design can scale beyond 200 participants and achieve genuine price stability before it can be considered a building block for the M69 monetary future.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-10

Leu is a digital local community currency for the city of Zürich, Switzerland, launched in May 2022 by the Encointer Association (founded 2018 by Alain Brenzikofer). It runs on the Encointer protocol, a Kusama system parachain (common good parachain) that uses Proof-of-Personhood ceremonies to issue a universal basic income in the form of local currency tokens. Every 10 days, participants attend physical key-signing gatherings at randomized locations in Zürich; upon mutual attestation via the Encointer Wallet app, each attendee receives 44 LEU. The currency features demurrage of approximately 5.6% per month, encouraging rapid circulation. There are roughly 200+ active participants, over 25 acceptance points (cafes, shops, services), and approximately 1,000-1,600 registered accounts. The recommended exchange rate is 1 LEU = 1 CHF, but this is a social convention among merchants rather than a collateral-backed peg — Leu has zero fiat reserves. The Leu is named after the lion on Zürich's coat of arms. From an M69 alignment perspective, Leu is architecturally distinctive among complementary currencies. Its issuance is genuinely debt-free and tied to real human participation (Proof-of-Personhood), not fiat deposits. The protocol is fully open-source, blockchain-enforced, non-custodial, and features demurrage as an anti-hoarding mechanism. Community governance is on-chain: participants vote on issuance parameters, demurrage rates, and treasury spending with one-person-one-vote democratic rules enforced by the blockchain. These design choices align strongly with M69 values of sovereignty, inclusivity, and fiat independence. However, the project's weaknesses are equally clear: adoption remains extremely small (hundreds of active users, ~25 businesses), the currency has no independent stability mechanism beyond social convention, global accessibility is limited by the requirement for physical presence in Zürich, and the project depends on the Kusama/Polkadot ecosystem for infrastructure. The Leu demonstrates the M69 vision at grassroots scale but has yet to prove it can achieve meaningful traction beyond a niche community experiment.

Issuance Model3x

4.2

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Issuance is semi-open: anyone can participate by attending a physical Proof-of-Personhood ceremony in Zürich every 10 days — no KYC, no approval, no whitelist. However, participation requires physical presence at randomized locations in Zürich, which is a geographic constraint. The protocol enforces one-person-one-income via the PoP mechanism, not via identity documents. [1][2]	3
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism whatsoever. Leu is created from nothing ("ex nihilo") when participants attend ceremonies — similar to how the Encointer whitepaper describes it: "the community income doesn't need to be financed by anyone." There are no collateral deposits, no loans, no borrowing. Issuance is purely a UBI distribution tied to proven personhood. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is tied to human participation — specifically, physical attendance at ceremonies proves real people exist in the community. This is not a real-economy index (like BCI or labor output) but it is directly linked to the real-world presence and activity of community members. The fixed issuance of 44 LEU per ceremony per person is proportional to active population, creating a population-linked supply. [1][2]	4
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?Elastic supply with no hard cap. Supply expands with each ceremony (new LEU issued to attendees) and contracts continuously via demurrage (5.6% monthly). The money supply stabilizes proportional to the active population — more participants means more issuance, fewer participants means demurrage dominates and supply shrinks. This is genuine two-way elasticity linked to community size. [1][2]	5
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Yes, demurrage continuously contracts supply at 5.6% per month on all balances. This is automatic, on-chain, and symmetric with expansion (new issuance per ceremony). No governance action or user initiative is required for contraction — it happens continuously and programmatically. If participation drops, contraction outpaces issuance and total supply shrinks. [1][2]	4

Spending Power Stability2x

1.8

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?2× No explicit stability mechanism exists. Demurrage manages supply contraction, and issuance is population-proportional, but there is no algorithmic price stabilization, no rebase mechanism, and no targeting of a price index. The recommended 1:1 CHF exchange rate is a social convention among merchants, not a protocol mechanism. Value stability depends entirely on merchant acceptance and community trust. [1][2]	1
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?2× The informal benchmark is the Swiss franc (CHF) at a recommended 1:1 rate, but this is not a protocol-level target. The CHF is one of the world's strongest and most stable fiat currencies, providing a concrete reference point. However, the 1:1 rate is purely social convention — supply and demand can push the actual rate away from parity. The CHF reference provides a strong anchor by proxy. [1][2]	3
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?1× Since there is no formal stability mechanism, there is no formal stability measurement to verify. However, all issuance, demurrage, and balances are fully on-chain and publicly auditable on the Kusama blockchain. Anyone can verify total supply, issuance events, and demurrage application in real time. The lack of a stability target means transparency applies to monetary operations but not to price stability specifically. [1][2]	3
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?2× With no formal stability target, this question is difficult to score. The recommended 1:1 CHF rate has been maintained as a merchant convention since May 2022 (~4 years), but the actual market rate is unknown and may deviate. The high demurrage (5.6%/month = ~50%+ annually) means that Leu loses value rapidly if not spent, creating structural purchasing power erosion for holders. No data exists on actual exchange rate stability. [1][2]	2
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?1.5× The protocol does not distinguish between short-term and long-term purchasing power. Demurrage creates continuous long-term erosion by design (to incentivize spending). There is no mechanism addressing long-term purchasing power preservation — the design intentionally sacrifices long-term holding value for circulation velocity. [1][2]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?1× No stability mechanism exists, and participation requires physical presence in Zürich for ceremonies. The currency is geographically restricted by design — you must be in Zürich to earn Leu, and spending is limited to ~25 local acceptance points. Non-Zürich residents cannot meaningfully participate. [1][2]	1

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

3.9

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?2× The Leu is its own unit of account — "1 LEU" — not formally denominated in CHF. The recommended 1:1 CHF rate is a merchant convention for bootstrapping, not a protocol-level peg. The Encointer protocol explicitly states that the value is "self-determined" by community acceptance. However, during this early phase the CHF reference dominates practical usage, and the currency is not yet perceived as independent by most participants. [1][2]	3
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?2× Zero fiat reserves. The Leu is not backed by any collateral — no CHF, no crypto, no commodities. It is a pure community currency issued through Proof-of-Personhood with no reserves whatsoever. This is complete fiat independence in terms of collateral, but also means there is no redemption guarantee. [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?1× No banking relationships are required for core protocol operation. The Leu operates entirely on the Kusama blockchain. There is no fiat on-ramp or off-ramp built into the protocol. Individual merchants may accept CHF for Leu as a convenience (e.g., Sphères cafe sells Leu for CHF), but this is voluntary and not a protocol dependency. [1][2]	4
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?1× The protocol does not use price feeds or oracles at all. There is no price oracle, no fiat-denominated data feed, and no external price reference in the protocol. Issuance is purely ceremony-based. The 1:1 CHF recommendation exists outside the protocol as social convention. [1][2]	5
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?1× If the CHF collapsed, the Leu protocol would be structurally unaffected — there is no fiat reference in the code, no fiat reserves, and no oracle dependency. The social convention of 1:1 CHF pricing at merchants would need to adjust, but the protocol itself would continue issuing 44 LEU per ceremony regardless. Merchant pricing would need to find new equilibrium independently. [1][2]	4
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?1× The project is designed to be fiat-independent from inception — the 1:1 CHF recommendation is explicitly described as a bootstrapping convention. The protocol acknowledges that the exchange rate "may change over time" based on supply and demand. There is no structural fiat dependency to transition away from. However, the social dependency on CHF pricing benchmarks is strong in practice and no formal milestones for achieving fully independent pricing exist. [1][2]	3
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?2× The Encointer protocol natively supports multiple independent local currency communities. Beyond Leu (Zürich), the Green Bay Dollar (Wisconsin, USA), Nyota (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania), and Aslah (Kigali, Rwanda) already operate on the same protocol. Each is an independent local currency with its own parameters, but they share the same blockchain infrastructure. Cross-community settlement is theoretically possible through the shared Kusama base layer. [1][2]	4
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?1.5× Encointer operates within the Kusama/Polkadot ecosystem, which provides cross-chain interoperability via XCM (Cross-Consensus Messaging). Interoperability with other parachains is possible through standard Substrate/Polkadot infrastructure. However, Encointer has not published a protocol-specific monetary interoperability standard for cross-system settlement with non-Polkadot monetary systems. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

2.7

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?2× The Leu is fully active and operational as of April 2026. The website is maintained, ceremonies occur every 10 days, acceptance points are listed and updated, community events (LEUträff) continue, and the Encointer forum shows ongoing discussion including December 2024 democratic votes. The Encointer protocol continues active development on GitHub. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?1× The Leu launched in May 2022 (~4 years). The Encointer Association was founded in 2018 (~8 years) and the protocol concept dates to Brenzikofer's 2018 whitepaper. The Leu specifically has been operational for approximately 4 years. [1][2]	3
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?2× Approximately 200+ active participants (those regularly attending ceremonies) and 1,000-1,600 registered accounts. The MIT Solve submission indicates 150-200 regular users across all Encointer communities, with the majority in Zürich. This places it well under 1,000 active users. [1][2]	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?2× Over 25 acceptance points in Zürich and surrounding area, including cafes (Casa del Gato, Sphères), retail (Kineo), services (Easymatur, yoga), and others. Any business can join without an admission process. This places acceptance at 10-100 businesses — very limited merchant adoption. [1][2]	2
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?3× Within the Leu community, prices at acceptance points are denominated in LEU (at 1:1 CHF convention). Participants receive "44 LEU" per ceremony — denominated in the native unit. However, the 1:1 CHF convention means prices are effectively still CHF prices with a Leu label. True independent unit-of-account usage is nascent at best. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?1× Alain Brenzikofer (founder) remains active in Encointer development. Malik El Bay is active in Leu community management. The Encointer Association and its team of developers continue active protocol development on GitHub. The collaboration with Dezentrum think tank continues. [1][2]	4
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?1× Key partners include: Dezentrum (think tank, co-launched Leu), Web3 Foundation (initial grants), Kusama Treasury (ongoing funding), Supercomputing Systems (Brenzikofer's employer), ETH Zürich (research collaboration on proof-of-personhood). Also part of the Polkadot/Kusama ecosystem. This represents 5+ meaningful partnerships across research, technology, and funding. [1][2]	4
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?1× Covered by 20 Minuten (major Swiss media), Tsüri.ch, Polykum (ETH student magazine), Data Innovation Alliance, HackerNoon, CryptoEconomy, FX Empire. Academic: Brenzikofer's arxiv paper, ETH Zürich collaboration, MIT Solve Financial Inclusion Challenge submission, Polkadot/Kusama ecosystem recognition. This is niche/specialist coverage plus some mainstream Swiss media. [1][2]	3
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?1× The UBI issuance (44 LEU per ceremony) is itself an incentive to participate. However, the UBI is the core design of the system, not an artificial subsidy bolted on to drive adoption. Users participate for the community income and to support local economy. There are no token airdrops, yield farming, or speculative incentives. The incentive is structural (UBI) rather than promotional. [1][2]	3
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?1× Limited data on growth trends. The community has grown from initial launch to ~200 active participants and ~25 acceptance points over 4 years, which is slow but steady. December 2024 saw the first democratic votes, indicating institutional maturation. No evidence of rapid growth or sharp decline. The project appears stable but growing slowly. [1][2]	3
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?1.5× Strong founding narrative around equality, UBI, local economy, and community self-determination. The name "Leu" (lion from Zürich's coat of arms) creates local identity. LEUträff community events build social bonds. The Encointer vision paper articulates a century-scale mission for financial inclusion and sovereignty. However, the community is small and the cultural identity is still developing. [1][2][3]	3

Sovereignty

3.5

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?2× The Encointer protocol runs as a Kusama system parachain — shutdown would require Kusama governance to remove it. The Encointer Association holds the trademark but does not control the blockchain. However, the Association could theoretically influence protocol direction, and Kusama governance (through referendum) could remove the parachain. Shutdown requires coordination of multiple independent parties but is not impossible. [1][2]	3
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?1× Fully open-source: the parachain code (Rust/Substrate), wallet app (Flutter), and all supporting tools are on GitHub under open licenses (Apache-2.0, GPL). Anyone can run a collator node. The wallet app is available on F-Droid (open-source Android store), Google Play, and iOS TestFlight. The full stack can be independently verified and forked. [1][2]	5
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?1× The Encointer Association is registered in Zürich, Switzerland. However, the protocol runs on the global Kusama network, the code is open-source, and communities exist in multiple countries (Switzerland, USA, Tanzania, Rwanda). Swiss regulatory action could affect the Association but not the underlying protocol or non-Swiss communities. [1][2]	3
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?2× Fully non-custodial. The Encointer Wallet app holds private keys on the user's device. The protocol description states: "the wallet keeps custody of your accounts' private keys." No intermediary holds user funds at any point. All balances are on-chain and controlled by the user's private key. [1][2]	5
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?1× Alain Brenzikofer is the founder and primary architect. The Encointer Association and development team includes other contributors (Malik El Bay, developers visible on GitHub). The open-source code and Kusama integration mean the system could theoretically continue without Brenzikofer, but he remains the primary intellectual and technical driver. Moderate key-person risk. [1][2]	3
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?1× Critical dependency on Kusama network for consensus and security. If Kusama governance removed Encointer as a system parachain, the project would need to migrate. Additionally, the wallet app depends on app stores (Google Play, Apple) for distribution, though F-Droid provides an alternative. The Kusama dependency is significant but mitigated by Encointer's system-chain status. [1][2]	3
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?1.5× At the protocol level, there is no blacklist or freeze capability built into the Encointer protocol. Transactions go through Kusama validators who process them permissionlessly. However, the physical ceremony requirement creates a different censorship vector — organizers could theoretically exclude individuals from ceremonies, though the randomized assignment of meeting locations mitigates this. [1][2]	4
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?1.5× The Encointer whitepaper explicitly addresses privacy. The protocol uses Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) to process transactions off-chain with privacy guarantees — transaction amounts and parties can be shielded. The original paper describes Encointer as a "private cryptocurrency." However, the current Kusama implementation may not fully implement all privacy features described in the whitepaper. On-chain balances on Kusama are pseudonymous. [1][2]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?2× Core monetary rules (issuance per ceremony, demurrage rate, ceremony scheduling) are enforced by on-chain logic in the Substrate runtime. Changes to these parameters require community democratic votes with on-chain approval. The Encointer Association can suggest protocol updates but these can be blocked by a 2/3 referendum vote. The code is open-source and auditable. However, runtime upgrades via Kusama governance could theoretically modify rules. [1][2]	4

Governance

3.6

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?2× On-chain democratic governance. Community members who have attended ceremonies in the last 5 cycles can vote on proposals. Any community member can propose changes to currency parameters (income amount, demurrage rate, gathering locations) or treasury spending. The first formal democratic votes took place in December 2024. Proposals are resolved by the first to achieve sustained approval during a confirmation period. [1][2]	4
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?1× One-person-one-vote based on ceremony attendance (Proof-of-Personhood). Each person who attended a ceremony in the last 5 cycles gets exactly one vote — no token-weighted voting, no plutocratic advantage. This is among the most egalitarian governance models in any blockchain project. However, the total voting population is small (~200 active participants). [1][2]	4
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?2× All governance proposals, votes, and outcomes are on-chain on the Kusama blockchain. The monetary mechanism (issuance logic, demurrage, ceremony validation) is fully open-source and auditable. Discussions happen on the public Encointer forum. Any issuance event can be verified in real time. Minor gap: some deliberation may happen in informal channels (Meetup, LinkedIn) not captured on-chain. [1][2]	4
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?1.5× The one-person-one-vote model based on physical attendance makes governance capture extremely difficult — you cannot buy votes, accumulate tokens for voting power, or use bots. An attacker would need to physically attend ceremonies with many fake identities, which the Proof-of-Personhood mechanism is specifically designed to prevent. However, with only ~200 active participants, a coordinated group of 50+ real people could potentially dominate votes. [1][2]	4
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?1× At the community level, any member can propose parameter changes (income, demurrage, locations) through on-chain proposals. At the protocol level, the Encointer Association suggests updates that can be blocked by 2/3 referendum vote. Kusama runtime upgrades follow Kusama governance (OpenGov). The multi-layer governance is structured but the community-level process is still maturing. [1][2]	3
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?1× There is a structural separation: community-level governance handles monetary parameters (income amount, demurrage rate) via democratic votes, while protocol-level changes go through Kusama governance and Association oversight. The community cannot change the core protocol logic; it can only adjust its own parameters within protocol-defined bounds. This provides meaningful separation. [1][2]	4
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?1.5× The Encointer whitepaper and protocol documentation articulate core principles: proof-of-personhood, one-person-one-income, demurrage, democratic governance. These principles are embedded in the protocol code and cannot be changed by community votes alone. However, there is no formal "constitution" document — the principles are expressed through code and documentation rather than a binding charter. [1][2]	3
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?2× Community members can vote to change the income amount and demurrage rate via on-chain democratic proposals. These changes require sustained community approval through the formal proposal process. The core issuance mechanism (Proof-of-Personhood ceremonies) cannot be changed by community votes — it requires protocol-level changes through Kusama governance, providing a structural constraint stronger than operational changes. [1][2]	4

Resilience

1.9

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?2× No major crisis has been documented. The Leu community was "purged" at one point (GitHub issue #138 references this), which may indicate a technical reset or data loss event. However, there is no evidence of surviving a severe crisis such as a collateral crash, regulatory attack, or exploit. The project is too young and too small to have faced meaningful adversarial conditions. [1][2]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?1× As a Kusama system parachain, the protocol benefits from Kusama's decentralized validator set (~900 validators) for consensus. Multiple collator nodes can run the Encointer parachain. The wallet app is distributed through multiple channels (F-Droid, Google Play, TestFlight). However, the ceremony coordination and community management depend on a small team. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?1× The fully open-source code (GitHub) and on-chain state (Kusama blockchain) mean the system could theoretically be rebuilt by any competent team. Ceremony history and account data are on-chain. However, no documented disaster recovery plan exists. The community relationships and merchant acceptance would need to be rebuilt manually. [1][2]	3
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?1× The core concept is elegant: attend a ceremony, prove you're a person, receive UBI, spend before demurrage erodes it. A new person can understand this in minutes. However, the underlying technology (Substrate runtime, Kusama parachain, TEE-based privacy, Proof-of-Personhood cryptography) is highly complex. The conceptual layer is simple; the implementation layer requires deep Substrate/blockchain expertise. [1][2]	3
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?1× The project is built on Substrate/Kusama — a significant but niche blockchain ecosystem. If Kusama/Polkadot were to decline or shut down, Encointer would need to migrate to another chain or run independently. The Substrate framework is open-source and could theoretically be forked, but migration would be disruptive. The dependency on Kusama's continued operation is a meaningful risk. [1][2]	2
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?2× There is no collateral to crash and no bank run risk (no reserves to run on). Demurrage provides continuous supply contraction. However, there is also no circuit breaker, no dynamic adjustment for economic stress, and no tested behavior under stress conditions. If merchant acceptance collapsed, the currency would lose all utility with no fallback mechanism. The protocol has not been tested in any stress environment. [1][2]	2
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?1.5× Funded primarily by Kusama Treasury grants, with initial funding from Web3 Foundation. The Encointer Association operates on a volunteer basis with no commercial revenue model. Kusama Treasury funding depends on ongoing governance approval and KSM token value. This is grant-dependent funding with no self-sustaining revenue, creating medium-term uncertainty. [1][2]	2
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?1× The ceremony mechanism requires real-time coordination (participants must meet simultaneously at specific locations). This is fundamentally incompatible with high-latency or disconnected networks. However, the underlying Substrate runtime is modular enough to be re-implemented. The PoP concept is technology-agnostic in theory but the current implementation requires low-latency connectivity. [1][2]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?1× The Proof-of-Personhood mechanism is specifically designed to exclude non-human participants — it requires physical presence at ceremonies to prove humanness. AI agents cannot attend physical ceremonies and therefore cannot earn Leu. However, AI agents could hold and transact Leu if given an account with funds (transfers are standard blockchain transactions). The issuance mechanism is human-only by design. [1][2]	2

Inclusivity

4.1

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?2× Anyone can participate in the Leu community regardless of nationality, wealth, or status — no KYC, no government ID, no minimum balance, no credit check. However, physical presence in Zürich every 10 days is required to earn Leu, restricting participation to Zürich residents or frequent visitors. The Encointer protocol supports communities anywhere, but each community is geographically bound by design. [1][2]	2
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?1× Zero cost to start. Download the free Encointer Wallet app, attend a ceremony, and receive 44 LEU. No minimum balance, no transaction fees beyond minimal Kusama network fees (subsidized for Encointer as a system parachain). The only cost is time and physical presence at a ceremony (~15 minutes every 10 days). [1][2]	5
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?1× The project's stated mission is to serve financially excluded populations — the MIT Solve Financial Inclusion Challenge submission explicitly targets the 1+ billion people without bank access. The system requires no bank account, no government ID, and no minimum wealth. However, the Zürich deployment serves a relatively affluent population. The Tanzania (Nyota) and Rwanda (Aslah) deployments more directly serve underbanked communities. [1][2]	3
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?1.5× Seigniorage (new money creation) is distributed equally to all ceremony attendees — each person receives exactly 44 LEU regardless of wealth, status, or history. This is the most egalitarian seigniorage distribution model possible: universal, equal, and proof-of-personhood-gated. No insider allocation, no founder share, no VC preferential terms. The Encointer Association operates on volunteer basis and treasury grants, not protocol revenue. [1][2]	5
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?2× Identical rules for every participant. Every person receives the same 44 LEU per ceremony. Demurrage applies equally to all balances. Voting power is one-person-one-vote. There are no tiered access levels, no whale advantages, no preferential rates. Businesses and individuals operate under the same rules — businesses simply accept Leu as payment with no special protocol treatment. [1][2]	5
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?1.5× No government ID or identity documentation required. Proof-of-Personhood uses physical presence at ceremonies, not identity documents. The Encointer whitepaper explicitly describes the system as supporting "self-sovereign identity" without state-issued ID. Pseudonymous participation is possible — the protocol proves personhood, not identity. Community members can participate without revealing their real-world identity. [1][2]	4
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?1× Multiple anti-concentration mechanisms: (1) Demurrage (5.6%/month) rapidly erodes large balances, making hoarding impossible; (2) Equal UBI distribution gives everyone the same amount regardless of wealth; (3) One-person-one-vote governance prevents plutocratic capture. This is one of the most structurally egalitarian monetary systems ever implemented. [1][2]	5

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Leu (Zürich) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Leu (Zürich)?

Issuance is semi-open: anyone can participate by attending a physical Proof-of-Personhood ceremony in Zürich every 10 days — no KYC, no approval, no whitelist. However, participation requires physical presence at randomized locations in Zürich, which is a geographic constraint. The protocol enforces one-person-one-income via the PoP mechanism, not via identity documents.

How does Leu (Zürich) maintain stable spending power?

2× No explicit stability mechanism exists. Demurrage manages supply contraction, and issuance is population-proportional, but there is no algorithmic price stabilization, no rebase mechanism, and no targeting of a price index. The recommended 1:1 CHF exchange rate is a social convention among merchants, not a protocol mechanism.

Is Leu (Zürich) independent from fiat currencies?

2× The Leu is its own unit of account — "1 LEU" — not formally denominated in CHF. The recommended 1:1 CHF rate is a merchant convention for bootstrapping, not a protocol-level peg. The Encointer protocol explicitly states that the value is "self-determined" by community acceptance.

Who controls Leu (Zürich) and can it be shut down?

2× The Encointer protocol runs as a Kusama system parachain — shutdown would require Kusama governance to remove it. The Encointer Association holds the trademark but does not control the blockchain. However, the Association could theoretically influence protocol direction, and Kusama governance (through referendum) could remove the parachain.

How widely adopted is Leu (Zürich) today?

2× Approximately 200+ active participants (those regularly attending ceremonies) and 1,000-1,600 registered accounts. The MIT Solve submission indicates 150-200 regular users across all Encointer communities, with the majority in Zürich. This places it well under 1,000 active users.

Is Leu (Zürich) still active and growing?

2× The Leu is fully active and operational as of April 2026. The website is maintained, ceremonies occur every 10 days, acceptance points are listed and updated, community events (LEUträff) continue, and the Encointer forum shows ongoing discussion including December 2024 democratic votes. The Encointer protocol continues active development on GitHub.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Leu (Zürich)?

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.8): Leu has no stability mechanism whatsoever. The 1:1 CHF convention is social, not algorithmic. The 5.6% monthly demurrage means the currency loses over 50% of its value annually for holders. There is no benchmark, no targeting mechanism, and no track record of price stability. This is the most fundamental gap in the design from an M69 perspective.

What makes Leu (Zürich) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Issuance Model (4.2): Leu's issuance design is remarkably aligned with M69 values. Debt-free creation through Proof-of-Personhood, elastic supply via demurrage, population-proportional issuance, and zero collateral make it one of the most M69-native issuance models assessed. The mechanism of tying money creation to human participation rather than capital is philosophically and structurally distinctive.

How is Leu (Zürich)'s M69 Score calculated?

Leu (Zürich) scores 3.3/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 3.4, Civilizational Durability 3.0, Universal Adoption 3.2. Strongest: Issuance Model (4.2). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.8).