With the transfer of the global economy into the online area, a range of questions concerning the payment procedure ensued (Taylor 2). Even though it quickly became possible to use credit cards for paying for online services and buying products online, the issue regarding possible alternative payment methods has been raised quite a few times (Patent Application Titled “Mobile Currency Messaging Systems” Published Online 9572). Seeing that the environment of the online economy differed greatly from the real-life one, it was reasonable to suggest that a new type of currency should be suggested as opposed to dollars, euros, etc. Alternative systems of payment were the result, and the Amazon Coin was a peculiar specimen of the latter.
According to the official statement made by the organization, the Amazon Coin is “a virtual currency you can use to purchase eligible apps, games, and digital in-app items” (Amazon para. 1). Though often compared to BitCoins, Amazon Coins represent a different concept, as they are only valid within the Amazon Company; outside of its services, the coins are useless. Herein their acceptability and legality lie; however, it should be noted that the specified characteristics of Amazon Coins also define their value and significance to a considerable extent.
Even though the Amazon Coin as a concept works perfectly well within the environment of the Amazon online services, being both legal and economically reasonable as opposed to bitcoins, it is still considered alien to the existing monetary system by the U.S. government, even though the U.S. citizens enjoy the services; herein the conflict between the social and the political implications of the introduction of a digital currency lie.
The consensus that the Amazon organization has found between the [political and social implications is truly fascinating (Wolfe 2). The company has managed to balance between what is considered a punishable offense and a challenge to the global financial system, as the introduction of a new currency, which, from the perspective of the U.S. law, technically falls under the category of crime: “in using the word “coin” Amazon invoked a language that the FED associates with counterfeiting” (Appeagle para. 3). Nevertheless, Amazon has maintained its status as a law-abiding company; moreover, the organization has become known worldwide as the firm that made the idea of a virtual currency possible (Hughes 2).
Indeed, while it would be wrong to claim that the Amazon Corporation has come up with the concept of online money, one must give the organization some credit for perfecting the system of virtual coins.
The route, which the Amazon Company has managed to locate to avoid the possible legal issues is, in fact, much more than merely a clever trick; the strategy that the organization has adopted to handle the possible accusations of a financial fraud shows that the concept of online money is quite viable and must be accepted in the online economic environment as one of the most reasonable and adequate systems of payment for online commodities (Plassaras 377).
As far as the social specifics of the approach in question are concerned, the adoption of the virtual currency, even though on a relatively small scale (i.e., solely within the realm of Amazon), heralds the era, when the key social processes in general and the process of communication in particular, has been transferred into the virtual world. To be more exact, the negotiation stage has been digitalized to the point where it occurs online as the parties push the buttons on their computers. On a more general scale, the transfer of the economic interactions into the digital sphere presupposes that the amount of the actual real-life social interactions is going to be reduced to an even less significant amount. In other words, the fact that the key financial transactions are going to occur with the help of virtual coins devalues the process of negotiation between the customer and the producer of the services in question.
Much to the credit of the innovation introduced by the Amazon, it does have a range of positive elements that are going to have their effect on both the social and the political aspects of people’s lives. First and most obvious, the fact that the customers of the company will finally use a system that is based on paying for the services with a single type of currency, will trigger a major reinvention of the estate economy, as the need to adapt towards the new method of carrying out financial transactions between the customer and the producer emerges.
It would be wrong to claim, however, that the state authorities have welcomed the innovation with open arms – quite on the opposite, a range of governments have determined the newly create concept an obvious threat to economy and politics on the statewide and global levels (Patent Application Titled “Digital Currency Purchasing Flows” Published Online 5010). For instance, Bart Eitel’s recent article concerning the effects that Amazon coins show that there has been a major concern for the outcomes of the integration of the specified currency into the global economy. According to Eitel, people “will be forced to spend it on Kindle apps—not books, subscriptions or anything else sold by the site—bringing in real, physical, pass-the-bite-test dollars for developers” (Eitel para. 7). In other words, the concept of the Amazon coin can be considered as very dubious from an ethical perspective, not to mention the fact that its economic implications are rather vague (Dasgupta 91).
Speaking of which, the effects that the introduction of e-currency will have on the global economy cannot be viewed as entirely positive. First and most obvious, people will most likely abandon the use of actual currency sooner or later. To be more specific, the Amazon coin is most likely to trigger the phenomenon known as repricing;
When it comes to defining the characteristics of the approach undertaken by the Amazon Company, which makes their concept of coins so efficient, one must mention the fact that the organization handles a gift to each of the customers that decide to use the Amazon currency. The strategy mentioned above is truly brilliant, as it allows for attracting more target customers due to the seeming advantage that the company handles them. The approach in question has been described and explored in detail by Mauss: “The system would not be total if it did not include personal emotions and religion” (Mauss xii).
A closer look at the implications, which the gift system is bound to trigger in the environment of the global economy, will show that the possibility of simplification of the trading process and at the same time loading it with a range of powerful emotional undertones becomes increasingly big (Hirschman 17). To be more specific, the threat of money becoming not merely the means of retrieving goods and products, but also the method of identifying the status of the person possessing them within the environment of the virtual society will become much more tangible (Johnson 00:01:12). Granted that the effect mentioned above of money denoting the status of a person within a particular society can also be observed in real life, the very fact that the virtual reality interactions oust the real-life ones is the reason for concern. The fact that Amazon’s virtual money is among the major factors shows that the phenomenon of virtual currency deserves being looked at much closer (Patent Issued for Methods and Systems for Paying with Loyalty Currency during Online Payment 729).
Nevertheless, one must admit that the process of transferring the political and the social processes that are currently taking place in the U.S., as well as all over the world, into the realm of virtual reality means paying the toll to the evolution of the technological thought of the humankind. True, the political implications of the adoption of the Amazon coin, as well as the further incorporation of the economic factors, such as the fact that, much like bitcoin, the Amazon coin maybe later on accused of fraud in case some of its financial transactions may happen to be not as clear as they need to be: “The lack of intermediaries makes bitcoin an attractive technology for those who want to evade government scrutiny” (Rosenberg para. 3). However, the effects of introducing the very concept of the virtual money into the relationships between the producer and the customer take the relationships between the latter two to a whole new level, making it possible for people to adapt to the concept of the gift economy (Mauss 11). The latter, in its turn, can be seen as both an improvement in the economic relationships and a possible reason for concern, as the specified phenomenon introduces the customers to the concept of social Darwinism (Mauss xx) by creating the environment, in which only the right choices may keep a customer away from spending their money for falsely advertised goods and services (Mauss xx).
No matter how much people may like the concept of virtual money suggested by Amazon, it is still given a very cold shoulder by the American government, as the Amazon coin disrupts the state’s economy, devaluing the dollar; therefore, the solution that Amazon has found by achieving an economic and a financial consensus with all those concerned truly is fascinating. There is no need to stress that the creation of “virtual money” was a necessary step for adjusting to the environment of online trading, both for buyers and companies, and Amazon was one of the first organizations to understand it (Mitchell 29). The creation of the Amazon Coin is a major foot forward for the organization, as it allows for transferring the company’s financial operations to a whole new level, at the same time facilitating a faster and easier way of payment for its customers. Also, unlike bitcoin, Amazon Cons do not have a dubious air of poor reputation and possibility of a financial fraud around them, as they operate within a single system.
References
Amazon, 2014, About Amazon Coins. Web.
Dasgupta, Sayarmindu, 2013, Surveys, Collaborative art and Virtual Currencies: Children Programming with Online Data. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1(4): 8–98.
Hirschman, Albert O., 1997, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hughes, Jennifer, 2002, Online currency trading volume beats estimates. FT.com 10(1): 1–2.
Johnson, Boris, 2012, Ongka’s Big Moka. Web.
Mauss, Marcel, 1990 The Gift. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mitchell, Timothy, 2010, Fixing the Economy. Cultural Studies 12(1): 81–101.
“Patent Application Titled “Mobile Currency Messaging Systems” Published Online,”, 2014, Politics & Government Week 10(1): 1854.
Patent Application Titled “Digital Currency Purchasing Flows” Published Online., 2014, Politics & Government Week 7(1): 5009–5010.
Patent Issued for Methods and Systems for Paying with Loyalty Currency during Online Payment. 2014, Journal of Transportation 1(17): 729.
Plassaras, Nicolas A, 2013, Whack-a-Mole: Why Prosecuting Digital Currency Exchanges Won’t Stop Online Money Laundering. Chicago Journal of International Law 14(1): 377–407.
Rosenberg, Alyssia, 2013, Why The Federal Government Is Going After Bitcoin, But Amazon Coins Are Safe. Web.
Taylor, Paul, 2010, Investors Can Be Converted by Online Currency Offerings. FT.com 2(1): 1–2.
Wilk, Richard and Lisa Cliggett, 2007, Economies & Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Westview Press.
Wolfe, Daniel, 2010, Facebook Pushes Its Credits As An Online Currency. ATM & Debit New 12(36): 1–3.