Wörgl Stamp Scrip

Demurrage Currency

1932-33 municipal scrip with 1%/month demurrage that achieved 12-14x velocity of national currency, reducing unemployment during the Great Depression before being shut down by the central bank.

Type	Demurrage Currency
Region	Wörgl, Austria
Status	Historical
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.6

Weakly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.5

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

Civilizational Durability2.3

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.9

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.8

Stability2x

1.6

Fia Ind & Int2x

1.6

Traction2x

2.0

Sovereignty

2.0

Governance

2.0

Resilience

2.8

Inclusivity

4.6

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

Key Findings

Strongest category: Inclusivity (4.6)The Worgl experiment is a near-exemplary model of inclusive money creation. The demurrage mechanism is a textbook anti-concentration tool, seigniorage flowed 100% to public infrastructure, participation required no identity or wealth threshold, all users operated under identical rules, and the system was purpose-built to serve an economically devastated community with 33% unemployment. The demurrage feature alone would justify studying this experiment for any M69-aligned monetary design.

Strongest design element: Demurrage as structural wealth redistribution and velocity acceleratorThe 1% monthly stamp charge is the experiment's signature innovation. It simultaneously prevents hoarding (anti-concentration), accelerates circulation (9-10x faster than the Schilling), generates public revenue (stamp fees to municipal treasury), and creates automatic supply contraction pressure. No other historical monetary system has implemented this combination as elegantly.

Critical vulnerability exposed: Total dependence on fiat backing and national legal frameworkFiat Independence (1.6) is the weakest category because the scrip was 100% backed by and denominated in Austrian Schillings. The experiment had zero independence from the fiat system and was designed as a complement to, not replacement for, national money. When the Austrian National Bank asserted its monopoly, the experiment had no legal, technical, or structural defense.

Central bank shutdown demonstrates the identical lesson as GuernseySovereignty (2.0) and Governance (2.0) are weak because the experiment had zero structural defenses against institutional capture. The Austrian National Bank and Supreme Court terminated it through ordinary legal process. Like Guernsey, brilliant monetary design without immutable enforcement is fatally fragile. The lesson is even starker here: 200 municipalities were ready to adopt the model, but a single central bank ruling killed them all.

Traction is honest but punishing (2.0)Despite an extraordinarily powerful memetic legacy (TR-11 scored 5) and exceptional external recognition (TR-08 scored 5, including Irving Fisher, the Cleveland Fed, SAGE journals, and a major film), the eliminatory anchor of TR-01 (defunct, score 1) correctly constrains the category. A 90-year-old terminated experiment cannot score well on active adoption metrics.

Big takeaway: The Worgl Stamp Scrip is the most celebrated historical proof-of-concept for demurrage-based local currency, demonstrating that Gesell's Freigeld theory works spectacularly in practice -- 16% unemployment reduction while the nation's rose 19%, infrastructure boom, 9-10x velocity increase -- but its total dependence on fiat backing and absence of any technological or constitutional protection made it trivially destroyable by central authority.Any modern project inspired by Worgl must solve three problems simultaneously: (1) fiat independence so a central bank cannot delegitimize the backing, (2) technological enforcement so monetary rules cannot be overridden by legal decree, and (3) multi-jurisdictional operation so no single court can kill it.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

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

The Worgl Stamp Scrip experiment (July 1932 - September 1933) was a pioneering local currency initiative in the Austrian town of Worgl, implemented by Mayor Michael Unterguggenberger during the Great Depression. Facing devastating unemployment (over 30% of the town's 4,500 residents), the municipality issued "Certified Compensation Bills" (Arbeitsbestatigungsscheine) in denominations of 1, 5, and 10 Schillings, backed by an equivalent deposit of 40,000 Austrian Schillings at the local Raiffeisen Bank. The currency featured a 1% monthly demurrage charge (Silvio Gesell's "Freigeld" concept), requiring holders to affix stamps to maintain face value. This incentivized rapid spending, and the scrip circulated 9-10 times faster than the national Schilling. Over 13 months, unemployment fell by 16% in Worgl while rising 19% nationally, and the town completed major infrastructure projects including road repaving, a bridge, reservoir, ski jump, new houses, streetlights, and water distribution expansion. From an M69 alignment perspective, the Worgl experiment is a landmark case study in demurrage-based, debt-free local money creation tied to real economic activity. Its Issuance Model is strongly aligned: money was created without debt, spent directly into the productive economy through public works wages, and the demurrage mechanism provided an innovative automatic contraction feature that prevented hoarding and accelerated circulation. The seigniorage (demurrage stamp revenue) flowed entirely to the municipal treasury for public benefit. The experiment's anti-concentration design (demurrage as structural wealth redistribution) is among the most M69-aligned features of any historical monetary system. The cultural legacy is enormous: the experiment inspired Irving Fisher's "Stamp Scrip" book, Bernard Lietaer's work on complementary currencies, a 2018 feature film ("Das Wunder von Worgl"), the Unterguggenberger Institut (founded 2003), and a 2024 peer-reviewed article in SAGE's Local Economy journal. However, as a historical experiment shut down by the Austrian National Bank in 1933, the system scores poorly on all technology-dependent categories. There is no code, no blockchain, no smart contracts, no digital infrastructure. The experiment was terminated when the central bank asserted its monopoly on currency issuance, and the town lost its court challenge at the Austrian Supreme Court. The system was entirely dependent on a single municipality's political authority and had zero technological enforcement of its monetary rules. These honest limitations produce low scores across Traction (defunct), Sovereignty (shut down by central bank), Governance (no constitutional protection), and Resilience (digital infrastructure readiness). Critical analyses from the Mises Institute and academic research also question whether the demurrage feature itself, versus the general fiscal stimulus and external subsidies, was the primary driver of the economic revival.

Issuance Model3x

3.8

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Single issuer: the municipality of Worgl under Mayor Unterguggenberger. Only the town council could authorize issuance of the Certified Compensation Bills. This was a municipal government monopoly on local money creation, decided through town council vote. While democratic within the council, no other entity could issue the scrip. [1][2]	1
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism. The municipality deposited 40,000 Austrian Schillings at the Raiffeisen Bank as backing, then issued compensation bills and spent them directly into the economy paying workers for public works. No borrowing, no interest obligation on the issuance. The backing deposit was the town's own funds, not a loan. The scrip was spent into existence through wages, not lent into existence. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Directly tied to specific public works projects. The scrip was issued to pay wages for road repaving, bridge construction, reservoir building, water distribution expansion, streetlights, and tree planting. Each issuance corresponded to real labor performed on tangible infrastructure. This is a direct link to real productive activity, though not an algorithmic economic index. [1][2]	4
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?The total backing deposit was 40,000 Schillings, creating a practical ceiling. Only about 12,000 Schillings worth were actually released, with approximately 5,490-7,443 in active circulation at any time. The demurrage mechanism provided automatic contraction pressure (1% monthly), while new issuance expanded supply for projects. The system was elastic within the backing constraint, expanding and contracting based on municipal project needs and demurrage-driven retirement. [1][2]	4
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Yes, through two mechanisms. First, the 1% monthly demurrage acted as continuous automatic contraction pressure, reducing effective purchasing power of notes not stamped. Second, notes could be redeemed for Austrian Schillings at the Raiffeisen Bank (with a 2% exchange fee). The demurrage mechanism is a uniquely elegant contraction tool: supply effectively contracts unless holders actively pay to maintain it. Tax payments also retired scrip from circulation. However, contraction relied on the demurrage stamp mechanism rather than algorithmic on-chain processes. [1][2]	5

Spending Power Stability2x

1.6

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?The demurrage mechanism (1% monthly stamp) incentivized rapid spending rather than hoarding, maintaining velocity of circulation. The backing deposit at the Raiffeisen Bank provided a floor value (redeemable at 98% for Schillings). However, this was not an explicit stability-targeting mechanism; it was a velocity-accelerating mechanism. Stability was a byproduct of disciplined issuance against real projects, not an algorithmic target. [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?No explicit benchmark or price index was used. The scrip was denominated in Schillings and effectively pegged 1:1 to the Austrian Schilling (redeemable at 98%). No independent purchasing power measurement existed. The system inherited whatever stability or instability the Schilling provided. However, the issuance-per-project model structurally anchored value to productive labor. [1][2]	1
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No stability measurement existed to be transparent about. The amounts issued and backing deposit were public knowledge within the small community. The town council voted on issuance. However, there was no published methodology for measuring purchasing power, no index, and no formal audit of price levels. [1]	1
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?The scrip maintained approximate parity with the Austrian Schilling throughout the 13-month experiment. It was redeemable at 98% of face value and accepted at face value by local merchants and the municipality for tax payments. No significant deviation from the Schilling peg was reported during the experiment's operation. However, the track record is only 13 months (less than 1 year of meaningful data by modern standards). [1][2]	3
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?No explicit distinction. The 1% monthly demurrage addressed short-term hoarding behavior but was not framed as a volatility-dampening tool. Long-term purchasing power was not explicitly targeted; the scrip inherited the Schilling's long-term trajectory. No separate mechanisms for daily volatility versus multi-year drift. [1][2]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?The system was restricted to the town of Worgl (population ~4,500) and accepted in some outlying areas. No global accessibility whatsoever. The scrip was a hyper-local currency by design. [1][2]	1

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

1.6

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?The scrip was denominated in Austrian Schillings. Notes came in 1, 5, and 10 Schilling denominations. The unit of account was entirely borrowed from the national fiat currency. While the scrip had unique properties (demurrage), it did not define an independent unit of account. [1][2]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?100% fiat-backed. The entire issuance was backed by 40,000 Austrian Schillings deposited at the local Raiffeisen Bank. The backing was exclusively in the national fiat currency. The deposit even earned 6% interest for the municipal treasury. This is fully fiat-dependent collateral. [1][2]	1
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?Yes. The Raiffeisen Bank held the backing deposit and provided redemption services (scrip to Schillings at 98%). The banking relationship was integral to the system's credibility and convertibility. Without the bank deposit, the scrip would have had no tangible backing. However, day-to-day circulation was peer-to-peer without bank involvement. [1][2]	2
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?No price feeds or oracles existed. The system was entirely pre-digital. All values were denominated in Austrian Schillings. Project costs and wages were budgeted in Schillings. The entire pricing framework was fiat-denominated. [1]	1
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?The scrip was 100% backed by and denominated in Austrian Schillings. A Schilling collapse would have directly destroyed the backing deposit's value and the scrip's purchasing power. The system had no independence from Austrian fiat systemic risk. Indeed, Austria's economic turmoil in the 1930s (leading to the Anschluss in 1938) demonstrates the fragility of this dependency. [1][2]	1
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No transition plan existed. The scrip was designed as a complementary currency operating alongside and denominated in the fiat Schilling. There was no vision for fiat independence; the Schilling-denominated backing was the system's foundation. The experiment sought to supplement fiat, not replace it. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?The Worgl scrip was itself a local currency. Six neighboring villages copied the system, and Kirchbichl launched its own variant in January 1933. This demonstrates some composability potential -- multiple localities could (and did) create similar currencies. However, there was no formal settlement standard or denominational relationship between them. Each was an independent local implementation of the same concept, not a composable monetary system. [1][2][3]	3
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No formal interoperability standard. The system was redeemable to Schillings at 98%, providing a simple conversion mechanism. The concept was openly replicable (200 municipalities planned to copy it), but no protocol or standard for inter-municipal settlement or exchange rate coordination was defined. Each copying municipality implemented independently. [1][2]	2

Traction2x

2.0

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?The experiment was terminated by the Austrian National Bank on September 1, 1933. It has been defunct for over 90 years. The Unterguggenberger Institut (founded 2003) preserves the legacy but does not operate the currency. The experiment is historically significant only. [1][2]	1
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?The experiment ran for approximately 13 months (July 31, 1932 to September 1, 1933). As a historical case study, it has existed in the historical record for over 90 years. Scoring based on the experiment's active life of 13 months. [1][2]	2
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?During the experiment, the entire population of Worgl (~4,500 people) participated, plus users in outlying areas and six neighboring villages. Today, the experiment has zero active users. Scoring reflects historical peak usage of a small town population. [1][2]	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?During the experiment, the scrip was accepted throughout the town of Worgl by local merchants, shops, and service providers. It was also accepted in outlying areas. The exact number of accepting businesses is not documented in available sources, but for a town of 4,500 the merchant base would have been in the dozens to low hundreds. Today, zero businesses accept it. [1][2]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?During the experiment, the scrip was denominated in Schillings and used as a medium of exchange. Prices and wages were quoted in Schilling-equivalent values. The scrip was not an independent unit of account; it borrowed the Schilling as its denomination. Within the community, it functioned as a unit of account for wages and local transactions during its active period. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Michael Unterguggenberger died in 1936 at age 52. The Unterguggenberger Institut was founded in 2003 to preserve his legacy, and actively maintains documentation, hosts events, and cooperates with the Museum Worgl. This represents strong successor stewardship of the intellectual legacy, though not active operation of the currency. [1][2]	2
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?The Unterguggenberger Institut partners with Museum Worgl. The experiment is studied by numerous organizations including complementary currency networks, the SCF Green Foundation, and academic institutions. Irving Fisher and Bernard Lietaer are notable scholarly champions. The 2018 ORF/BR/ARTE film involved major European broadcasters. More than research citations but less than operational partnerships. [1][2]	3
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Extensively documented. Irving Fisher's "Stamp Scrip" (1933) is a foundational academic text. The Cleveland Federal Reserve published a 2008 Economic Commentary on stamp scrip referencing Worgl. Bernard Lietaer published detailed analysis. A 2024 peer-reviewed article appeared in SAGE's Local Economy journal. The Mises Institute published a critical analysis. A 2018 feature film ("Das Wunder von Worgl") was produced by ORF/BR/ARTE. French PM Daladier visited Worgl personally. [1][2][3]	5
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption was mixed. The municipality paid wages in scrip, which was a form of top-down introduction. However, merchants accepted it voluntarily because it was redeemable and useful for paying local taxes. The demurrage incentivized spending rather than hoarding. Critical analyses note that external subsidies (Productive Unemployment Fund, Tyrol Government relief credit) also contributed to the economic revival. The Mises critique highlights tax-payment acceptance as a key driver. [1][2][3]	3
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?The experiment ended over 90 years ago. No growth trend. Interest in the historical case study persists and arguably grows (2018 film, 2024 peer-reviewed article), but the monetary experiment itself cannot grow. [1]	1
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Exceptionally strong narrative and cultural legacy. "The Miracle of Worgl" is one of the most compelling stories in monetary reform history. The narrative -- a small Austrian town defied the Great Depression with innovative local money, only to be crushed by the central bank -- is simple, dramatic, and enduring. Cultural artifacts include the Unterguggenberger Institut (2003), Museum Worgl, the 2018 feature film "Das Wunder von Worgl" (ORF/BR/ARTE with Karl Markovics), original scrip notes preserved as collectibles, and the "Guggifestival." Irving Fisher, Bernard Lietaer, and Edouard Daladier all championed the story. The experiment is a canonical reference in every serious discussion of complementary currencies, demurrage, and monetary reform. [1][2][3]	5

Sovereignty

2.0

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?Yes. The Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank) unilaterally shut down the experiment on September 1, 1933 by asserting its monopoly on currency issuance. The town of Worgl challenged this in court and lost at both the Administrative Court and the Austrian Supreme Court. A single institution ended the experiment, and it then became a criminal offence to issue complementary currencies. [1][2]	1
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Not applicable in the modern sense. The infrastructure was a municipal printing operation and tax collection system. The mechanism was simple enough that 200 municipalities planned to replicate it, and six neighboring villages did so independently. The concept was fully open and replicable, but there was no self-hostable digital infrastructure. [1][2]	2
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Fully subject to Austrian jurisdiction. The experiment operated under Austrian law and was terminated by the Austrian National Bank and Austrian courts. The Supreme Court ruling made the prohibition definitive. Complete single-jurisdiction dependency. [1][2]	1
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?The municipality issued physical paper notes but did not hold or custody individual funds. Citizens held their own notes physically. Peer-to-peer exchange of paper scrip required no intermediary. The backing deposit at the Raiffeisen Bank was municipal funds, not user deposits. Functionally non-custodial for day-to-day use. [1][2]	4
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Significant key-person risk. Mayor Michael Unterguggenberger was the sole champion and architect of the experiment. He personally convinced a divided town council and defended the experiment against the central bank. He died in 1936 at age 52, only three years after the experiment ended. No comparable successor emerged to revive the experiment. The divided council (equal social democrats and conservatives) required Unterguggenberger's unique cross-party leadership. [1][2]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependency on the Raiffeisen Bank for holding the backing deposit and providing redemption services. Critical dependency on the Austrian legal framework permitting complementary currencies. Both dependencies proved fatal: the central bank asserted its monopoly and courts upheld the prohibition. The bank deposit relationship was essential for credibility. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?As physical paper notes, individual transactions were peer-to-peer and uncensorable at the transaction level. The municipality could not block specific users or transactions once notes were in circulation. However, the entire system was censored at the macro level when the central bank banned complementary currencies entirely. Individual transaction-level censorship was impossible; system-level censorship proved trivially easy. [1][2]	3
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Physical cash transactions are inherently private. Peer-to-peer exchange of paper scrip left no digital trail. The municipality had no surveillance capability over individual note usage. Privacy was a natural feature of the medium (paper money), not an intentional design choice. The stamp affixing was observable but did not create a transaction record. [1]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?No technological enforcement whatsoever. The monetary rules (1% demurrage, backing deposit, denomination) were political commitments enforced by municipal authority. The town council could change rules by vote, and the central bank could (and did) override the entire system through legal decree. There was no immutable code, no smart contract, no cryptographic proof. Rules were entirely policy documents changeable at political or judicial discretion. [1][2]	1

Governance

2.0

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Decisions were made through the Worgl municipal council (Gemeinderat). The council was evenly divided between social democrats and conservatives (12 members each). Unterguggenberger was elected mayor by lot. The decision to implement the experiment required council vote. The council also voted to appeal to the Administrative Court when the central bank challenged the experiment. This was a formalized democratic governance process, though not specifically designed for monetary policy. [1][2]	3
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?The 24-member town council had equal representation between two political blocs. Decision power was distributed across elected council members. For a local currency experiment this represented relatively broad decision-making. However, effective authority was concentrated in Mayor Unterguggenberger who drove the initiative. By modern standards, 24 council members governing a monetary system is narrow. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?Council deliberations were public. Issuance amounts, backing deposits, and the demurrage mechanism were publicly known to the community. The compensation bills themselves printed their terms on the notes. The backing deposit at the Raiffeisen Bank was documented. For a 1930s municipal experiment, transparency was strong. However, there was no formal audit, no immutable record, and no independent verification mechanism beyond community trust. [1][2]	3
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Governance WAS captured. The Austrian National Bank and Austrian courts overrode the municipal council's monetary autonomy, shutting down the experiment despite the town's legal challenge. The system had no structural resistance to capture by the national monetary authority. Internally, the evenly divided council was vulnerable to political shifts, and the mayor was chosen by lot, indicating the fragility of the governing coalition. [1][2]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?Changes required town council votes through standard municipal governance procedures. The decision to appeal the central bank's prohibition was made through council vote (March 7 council decision to appeal). No special governance process distinguished monetary decisions from any other municipal business. [1]	3
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No separation. The municipal council handled the stamp scrip experiment through the same process used for all municipal business -- road maintenance, public works, budgets. Monetary policy had no special governance status or protection. The same council vote that could approve a road project could alter the currency parameters. [1][2]	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?The experiment was grounded in Silvio Gesell's Freigeld theory (published in "The Natural Economic Order," 1916). The compensation bills themselves printed their terms and rationale. However, there was no formal constitution, charter, or immutable monetary principles. The theoretical framework provided intellectual grounding but not binding constraints. The experiment could be (and was) terminated without violating any charter. [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?Issuance rules were entirely changeable through ordinary municipal council votes. No stronger constraints applied to monetary decisions versus other municipal decisions. The central bank could (and did) override all local monetary decisions unilaterally. No constitutional or structural protection for the monetary rules existed at any level. [1][2]	1

Resilience

2.8

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?The experiment operated during the Great Depression itself -- the most severe economic crisis of the 20th century -- and demonstrated remarkable performance (unemployment down 16% while rising 19% nationally). It survived the central bank's initial challenge and fought through the legal system. However, it ultimately DID NOT survive the central bank's legal shutdown. Mixed record: thrived during economic crisis but failed under regulatory assault. [1][2]	3
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Minimal redundancy. The system depended on the municipality's printing capability, the Raiffeisen Bank deposit, and the town council's continued authorization. The backing deposit was held at a single bank. No alternative issuance mechanism existed. However, the mechanism was simple enough that six neighboring villages independently replicated it, demonstrating implicit replicability as a form of redundancy. [1][2]	2
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?The experiment did fail (was legally terminated) and has NOT been recovered in its original form in over 90 years. However, the intellectual record is extensively documented: Irving Fisher's "Stamp Scrip" (1933), Lietaer's analyses, the Cleveland Fed's commentary, academic papers, and the Unterguggenberger Institut's archives all preserve the complete mechanism. Any municipality could implement the same system from the historical record. The concept has been reapplied in modified forms (Chiemgauer in Germany, for example). [1][2][3]	3
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?Exceptionally simple. The entire mechanism can be described in one paragraph: municipality deposits backing at bank, prints scrip, pays workers, workers spend at shops, shops pay taxes, notes require monthly stamps worth 1% to maintain face value, notes redeemable at 98% for national currency. No complex financial engineering. A schoolchild can understand it. This simplicity is why it was independently replicated by six villages and planned by 200 municipalities. [1][2]	5
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?The technology was paper, ink, and rubber stamps -- which have remained viable for centuries. The core logic (issue demurrage currency backed by deposits, spend into economy, collect via taxes and stamp fees) is entirely technology-agnostic. It could be implemented on paper, digital ledgers, or blockchain. The Chiemgauer (Germany) has implemented a modernized digital version of similar concepts. [1][2]	5
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?The demurrage mechanism provided an inherent anti-deflation feature by penalizing hoarding and incentivizing spending -- directly counteracting the deflationary spiral of the Great Depression. The backing deposit provided a floor value. However, no formal stress mechanisms existed beyond these structural features. The system was not tested against a bank run on the Raiffeisen backing deposit. The 1% monthly demurrage is itself a form of built-in economic stress mechanism, but it was designed for velocity, not crisis management. [1][2]	3
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?During its active period, the system was self-funding through multiple revenue streams: 1% monthly demurrage stamp revenue (~50 Schillings/month), 2% exchange fee for Schilling redemption (690 Schillings over 9 months), and 6% interest on the 40,000 Schilling backing deposit at the Raiffeisen Bank. The system generated revenue while operating, covering municipal project costs. However, this self-sufficiency was politically contingent and legally terminated. Today, the Unterguggenberger Institut preserves the legacy but the currency itself has no funding. [1][2]	2
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Paper money inherently operates in disconnected, high-latency environments. The Worgl scrip required no electronic network, no real-time connectivity. The system could operate indefinitely without telecommunications. The mechanism is simple enough to persist across centuries -- the concept has survived 90+ years in the historical record and continues to inspire new implementations. However, the monthly stamp requirement creates a time-dependent maintenance overhead that must be managed locally. [1]	4
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Not designed for AI agents. The system predates computing by decades. Physical paper notes require human handling and physical stamp affixing. No programmatic interface exists. However, the underlying logic (demurrage-based currency with backing deposit) could be trivially implemented in code for AI interaction. The mechanism is AI-compatible in principle but not in its historical implementation.	1

Inclusivity

4.6

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?During the experiment, participation was open to all Worgl residents regardless of wealth or social status. Workers, shopkeepers, and unemployed alike used the scrip. No minimum balance, no credit check. The experiment was specifically designed to include the unemployed and destitute (200 families were penniless at the start). However, participation was geographically restricted to Worgl and immediate surroundings (~4,500 people). Open locally but closed globally. [1][2]	3
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Zero cost to begin using. Workers received scrip as wages for public works. Merchants received scrip as payment from customers. No minimum balance required. Transaction costs were zero (physical cash exchange). The only cost was the 1% monthly stamp for holders, which was avoidable by spending quickly. The barrier to entry was geographical (being in Worgl) rather than financial. [1][2]	5
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?The experiment was designed specifically for a financially devastated community. Of 4,500 residents, 1,500 were unemployed and 200 families were penniless. The largest employer (cellulose factory) had closed. The stamp scrip was purpose-built to create employment and economic activity for people excluded from the conventional monetary system during the Depression. This is an exemplary case of monetary innovation serving the financially excluded. [1][2]	5
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Seigniorage (demurrage stamp revenue, exchange fees, interest on backing deposit) flowed entirely to the municipal treasury for public works. No private party captured the money creation benefit. No insider allocation, no founder tokens, no VC funding. The demurrage revenue funded roads, bridges, water systems, and public infrastructure benefiting all residents. This is an exemplary model of seigniorage distribution -- 100% to public benefit. [1][2][3]	5
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?All participants operated under the same rules. The scrip was accepted at face value from everyone -- workers, shopkeepers, taxpayers. The demurrage applied equally to all holders regardless of the amount held. No tiered access, no preferential rates, no institutional versus retail distinction. The mayor and council members were subject to the same demurrage as any laborer holding the notes. [1][2]	5
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?No identity requirement. Physical cash notes could be used by anyone holding them. No registration, no ID, no surveillance. The municipality had no capability to track individual note usage. Fully anonymous participation. The stamp affixing was a public action but did not require identity disclosure. [1]	5
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?The 1% monthly demurrage is an active anti-concentration mechanism. It structurally penalizes hoarding and large idle holdings, functioning as a wealth tax on monetary holdings. This is precisely the type of mechanism described in the rubric's top score: "demurrage, progressive fees." The demurrage redistributed value from holders to the public treasury. This is one of the most M69-aligned features of the experiment and a defining characteristic of Gesellian Freigeld design. [1][2][3]	5

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl)?

Single issuer: the municipality of Worgl under Mayor Unterguggenberger. Only the town council could authorize issuance of the Certified Compensation Bills. This was a municipal government monopoly on local money creation, decided through town council vote.

How does Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) maintain stable spending power?

The demurrage mechanism (1% monthly stamp) incentivized rapid spending rather than hoarding, maintaining velocity of circulation. The backing deposit at the Raiffeisen Bank provided a floor value (redeemable at 98% for Schillings). However, this was not an explicit stability-targeting mechanism; it was a velocity-accelerating mechanism.

Is Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) independent from fiat currencies?

The scrip was denominated in Austrian Schillings. Notes came in 1, 5, and 10 Schilling denominations. The unit of account was entirely borrowed from the national fiat currency.

Who controls Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) and can it be shut down?

Yes. The Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank) unilaterally shut down the experiment on September 1, 1933 by asserting its monopoly on currency issuance. The town of Worgl challenged this in court and lost at both the Administrative Court and the Austrian Supreme Court.

How widely adopted is Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) today?

During the experiment, the entire population of Worgl (~4,500 people) participated, plus users in outlying areas and six neighboring villages. Today, the experiment has zero active users. Scoring reflects historical peak usage of a small town population.

Is Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) still active and growing?

The experiment was terminated by the Austrian National Bank on September 1, 1933. It has been defunct for over 90 years. The Unterguggenberger Institut (founded 2003) preserves the legacy but does not operate the currency.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl)?

Weakest category: Fiat Independence (1.6).

What makes Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Inclusivity (4.6): The Worgl experiment is a near-exemplary model of inclusive money creation. The demurrage mechanism is a textbook anti-concentration tool, seigniorage flowed 100% to public infrastructure, participation required no identity or wealth threshold, all users operated under identical rules, and the system was purpose-built to serve an economically devastated community with 33% unemployment. The demurrage feature alone would justify studying this experiment for any M69-aligned monetary design.

How is Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl)'s M69 Score calculated?

Worgl Stamp Scrip (The Miracle of Worgl) scores 2.6/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.5, Civilizational Durability 2.3, Universal Adoption 2.9. Strongest: Inclusivity (4.6). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.6).