but let me today focus on the institutional and collective foundations of trust. ii. the golden triangle of trust trust relies on three key elements, which together form the golden triangle of trust : independence, mandate and accountability of central banks. they cover different notions but they closely intertwine. some may take them for granted, but they are actually the result of a long historical progress, and each of them is being challenged today. independence mandate accountability 1. the long quest for the independence of the issuer, and its current calling into question as early as in the 4th century b. c., aristotle famously identified the three functions fulfilled by money : medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. he complemented this brilliant theoretical approach with ethical guidelines, i opposing “ unnatural ” chrematistics – or personal enrichment – and virtuous economics – oikonomia, literally household management, to the benefit of the entire community. aristotle had a strong influence on the european middle ages, but his ethics of currency progressively faded into the background. in the context of the financial turmoil of the middle ages, in around 1355, nicholas oresme, a french scholastic philosopher, wrote his visionary treatise on the origin, nature, law and alterations of moneyii in which he asserted that the currency does not belong to the “ prince ” but to the people, and therefore should not be manipulated. but it took several more centuries for trust in money to be " dematerialised " : to move from trust in a physical medium - gold and silver, and metallic currencies - to trust in an institution. the 19th century, with the industrial revolution, saw the page 4 sur 10 expansion of banking and finance, and the creation of many central banks. it was a first decisive step : a dedicated guardian was put in charge of issuing banknotes, as a first “ immaterial ” currency. the second decisive step, mainly from late 20th century, was to make central banks independent from political power : in the 1980s and 1990s most central banks enshrined their independence in their statutes, including the eurosystem in order to ensure the stability of the single currency. the eurosystem also defined a target for inflation, as did the fed in 2012, a few years after ben bernanke strongly advocated for it. but independence – which i cherish – does not mean isolation. the context of the russian war in ukraine challenges us to reinvent the dialogue with

and ethical approach. from a moral overall ban, ethically “ fair ” interest rates have been progressively distinguished from usury rate, with the latter still being forbidden. page 2 sur 10 “ homo economicus ” invented currency very early in human history, and it is striking that almost as soon as currency was born, countless abuses were seen as well : manipulation of gold or silver weight in coins, skewing of scales, and so forth. men therefore quickly summoned ethics to define how to govern its use. however, human kind has also shown a tendency to exempt itself from the rules it had previously established, before setting new rules again in order to respond to the problems caused by deregulation. with the acceleration of historical transformations, the 20th and early 21st century have been particularly rich in the emergence of ethical issues. the great depression, which started in 1929, led to protectionist reactions, which themselves led to economic disasters ; a powerful movement of social inspiration reacted in turn by trying to bring back order in monetary affairs, and multilateralism in international ones ( see part iii ). in the 1970s, however, neoliberal thinking inspired by men such as milton friedman and friedrich hayek caused a swing of the pendulum. in hayek ’ s opinion for instance, trying to subject finance or the economy to ethical principles was a waste of time. today, after new crises and with the emergence of fresh concerns, the pendulum has swung again. to give just one example, environmental concerns have acquired an essential ethical dimension. another distinction is between the ethics of money and of currency. the ethics of money are customary and widespread, and can be summed up by the words of alexandre dumas, a famous french writer : “ money is a good servant but a bad master ”. the ethics of currency that interest me today are obviously part of this, but are perhaps less common. they have two specific features : ( i ) the importance of institutions, of the " sovereign " dimension : there is no currency without a public authority that guarantees it and is responsible for it ( ii ) the importance of trust, which can be defined as being able to count on the character, ability, strength or truth of someone or something. today, we central bankers are responsible for trust : we “ produce ” it, and we stand accountable for it. such a responsibility entails a strong personal component : our behaviour has to be flawless, and driven by real functional requirements and high ethical page 3 sur 10 standards.