Sounds like our beloved banking system tbh. Say you take a loan out. You give it to someone to buy a house. They put it into a bank. Then another guy takes a loan out from that bank, and gets twice loaned money to buy a house of his own. The guy he buys it from puts it into a bank. That bank then loans out the money to another guy who gets thrice loaned money for his house. All the while the banks are placing interest on the money they lend out (which BTW was widely considered illegal/immoral until ~1600) which ends up with the modern banking system literally creating money.

A hypothetical economy has $10,000 in total currency, a bank has all $10,000 in cash reserves to begin with. There are 40 members of society, each of them with a different occupation but together they form a basic economy.

Pete is loaned $9,000 from the bank.

Pete pays Bill that money for an old car.

Bill puts $9,000 in the bank.

The banking system has $10,000 cash.

Jane is loaned $9,000 from the bank.

Jane pays Matt that money for renovations to her house.

Matt puts $9,000 in the bank.

The bank has $10,000 cash.

The bank charges interest on these loans.

The bank is owed $10,000 from Pete

The bank is owed $10,000 from Jane

The bank owes $9,000 to Bill

The bank owes $9,000 to Matt

Pete and Jane pay back $10,000 each, $20,000 collectively, but wait, that can't happen, because there is only $10,000 in the entire economy and Bill and Matt each have a net worth of $9,000, accounting for 90% of the wealth of the economy (as far as they think, anyways). Lets step back.

The bank has $10,000 cash

The bank owes Matt $9,000

The bank owes Bill $9,000

Jane owes the bank $10,000

Pete owes the bank $10,000

## The Bank's Assets

Pete $10,000

Jane $10,000

Cash $10,000

---

Total $30,000

## Liabilities

Bill $9,000

Matt $9,000

---

Total $18,000

The Bank's Net worth $12,000

Pete's net worth -$10,000

Jane's net worth -$10,000

Bill's net worth $9,000

Matt's net worth $9,000

Total currency in the system $10,000

The total currency in the system is still $10,000, but the bank's accountant says it is worth $12,000. What? Not only that, but if the bank were to be found in the wrong, it would not just crumble the bank, but the entire economic system -- because everyone is involved and has a stake in what the bank is doing here.

Now, there are plenty of businesses in the world that, more or less, have a license to "print money" so to speak. People who offer their time for money have this to a certain extent, if I give you 10 hours of my day and you have to pay $1000 for it, I have basically created a debt in the system for $1000, without having first put $1000 of actual currency into the system.

The banking system is remarkable in this context however, because it uses money itself to create more money, while simultaneously making everyone a stakeholder in their being right -- increasing the danger to the system far more than any other existing entity. Bank's also vest rich people into their system by making them little lender's themselves (when our money makes interest by way of our banks investing/loaning it to others)

If I dont get paid my $1000 that I say you owe then too bad for me and I may sue you. But if the bank doesn't get paid it's $18,000 in the scenario above the whole economy is coming down with them. The banking system of borrowing and lending money that is not backed by anything tangible is a house of cards. It is a similar system to the OP's article that feeds itself. The guy who wrote this article I think got a first-hand perspective in how extraordinary it is when you see all of the working parts at once.

So, what happens when the bank does get found in the wrong in the above scenario? Let's walk through that.

Pete and Jane can't find the money to pay back their debt. They may have thought they had it in their sights, but for some reason they just can't seem to get enough money to pay back the bank (obviously, the money necessary just doesn't exist unless they can find a way to print money faster than the bank, but more on that later...) and so they both decide the bank is a sham and take up legal claims, suing the bank in their society's courts for usury and fraud.

The bank is (quite hypothetically) found guilty of both usury and fraud, since the extent of the economy is easily defined in this society it is easily reasoned that the bank is corrupting the system. A single entity cannot claim to have more currency than is in existence. It's loans are voided ab initio.

## The Bank's Assets

Cash $10,000

---

Total $10,000

## Liabilities

Bill $9,000

Matt $9,000

---

Total $18,000

Pete's net worth $0

Jane's net worth $0

Bill's net worth $9,000

Matt's net worth $9,000

The Bank's Net worth -$8,000

Total currency in the system $10,000

Bill and Matt hear of this debacle, and quickly go to the bank to withdraw their money. But it's a race to the counter, the bank only has $10,000 and they are both owed $9,000. It is worth noting at this point that the bank has literally no legal measures to take to prevent it from being liable for it's debts to Bill and Matt.

Bill gets to the counter first and withdraws all of his $9,000. The bank is legally obligated to pay Bill his $9,000 and does so. Matt gets to the counter but there is only $1,000 left, he withdraws the $1,000 that he can.

Matt sues the bank for not paying him back his money (he gave them his cold hard earned cash, afterall). The courts find Matt in the right and the bank owes him $9,000 that they do not have. The bank goes bankrupt, the economy goes bankrupt (funny that word) -- Matt and everyone else in the society refuse to use money as currency because it is not reliable.

But was it the currency that made the system collapse? No. It was the failed predictions of those in the banking system, who have more stakeholders than any other business ever has or should have. It is indeed true that once a stakeholder was made out of the richest few (themselves and those who produced the most in this scenario), every single person who relies on money subsequently became stakeholders, which is everyone in society.

System's that are similar to that described in the OP's article quickly fail, unless accurate predictions can be made about what the "economy" can "absorb" or rather, what can be skimmed off the top while not bringing the house of cards down. In OP's case there was little pre-planned organization and he had no insight into too many other things affecting his process so it was not really possible.