Do We Need Larger Denomination Circulation Coins?

The "problems" with coins are:

- Inconvenience. Carrying around enough coins to purchase something worthwhile is bulky and heavy. Once a populace gets used to using paper notes over coins, coins generally cease increasing in face value and eventually disappear altogether.

- Counterfeiting. Technology has advanced now to the point where it's relatively easy for organized crime to mass-produce large quantities of high-quality fake coins. Modern high-value coins tend to have lots of anti-counterfeiting widgets, but those are only as good as the public's awareness and use of them. Since the recent upgrades to the British £1 coin, the Australian $2 coin is probably now one of the best value-for-money coins to fake, it's small, relatively easy (no anti-counterfeiting widgets) and in common use. And much of the cost benefits to introducing a new high-value coin are reduced or eliminated, if you have to increase the cost of production by adding anti-counterfeiting devices.

- The invention of polymer notes as a viable alternative to coins. A big argument during the 20th century that drove the re-introduction of high-value coins was the rapid rate of deterioration of a high-circulation paper note. "A $1 note lasts six months, a $1 coin lasts thirty years" was the kind of statistic thrown around. But the invention of polymer notes has given "paper money" a renewed lease on life, because a polymer note lasts almost as long as a metal coin in circulation. Here in Australia in the early 1990s, the Mint was obviously lobbying for introducing a bimetallic $5 coin to replace the paper $5 note - but the polymer $5 note won out. Now, with polymer entrenched, we're never likely going to see a $5 circulation coin. If anything, it would go the other way around: $1 and $2 coins would be replaced with polymer notes, and all coins below $1 eliminated.

But ultimately, the push towards cashlessness will see fewer and fewer new cash types, coin or note, introduced.

I have wondered if they would ever resort to introducing notes with a barcode on them. Maybe I am a bit paranoid or cynical but I feel the push to a cashless society has an element of 'big brother' tracking about it. Digital transactions can be traced and taxed which of course would suit Governments and tax offices. Having a barcoded note would mean that it can be traded among people just like cash can now but it would only register when the barcode is read by a reader such as the note readers at some checkouts like those at the supermarkets.

I can't see us going completely cashless because small value transactions- think a drink or spring roll at weekend markets for example - would be too costly. The vendor has to pay for a card reader, the power and then tax on the income (things not necessarily paid for now). I think people will still want to carry out small value transactions so a means to do so is still needed. A barcoded note might be something that allows cash transactions to continue and also suit the 'big brothers'?

This is why I do not believe in a cashless society. Modern technology, digital currency, requires components dependent heavily on sattelite transmission. These are extremely valnerable to solar disruption and unforeseen glitches which could and do occur. Second, remember the cyber attack on the Colonial pipe line? When, and not if, that happens to a finacial network how will you pay for anything? On the subject, larger denominations of coin, we only need to look back on history.

Could you imagine having to collect all the $5 colourised coins as well. No thanks.