First of all , I applaud all alternative thinking. At this point the last thing we need is to discourage it. I am not at all opposed to the creation of (well-named, by the way) "Atlas Coins." I see their normative value.

One problem, though, as I understand the paradigm, is that attracting investment in them would depend on either their having sufficient returns or altruism — people buying them for reasons of morality, not expected profit. Perversely, it could actually be the case that the more stable they were the less investment they would attract: volatility increases risk, but also the possibility of windfalls.

With stable values, though, the Coins could attract investors as safe havens. The Coins would be tied to one or more national currencies, however, so the stability of the value of the Coins would therefore be dependent on the stable value of that(those) currency(ies).

One alternative that does not conflict with establishing these Coins would be a new and different way of supplying nations' economies with money (as currency). By itself, it addresses many of the socio-economic concerns raised by this author — and some others, as well. It would also establish currencies that would be far more stable than anything in the world today.

This paradigm could be enacted initially by groups of (smaller) countries as well as individual (larger) nations. It could eventually become a currency uniting most if not all nations economically — while allowing all nations using that currency to retain complete political sovereignty.