A potential logic of pure capital is given a thorough treatment in Amato’s debate about Bitcoin. Here too, Marxian and classic (Keynesian) liberal analyses are deployed in another (ugly) opposite. Amato offers an eye-opener on Bitcoin’s anarchic libertarian notion of a pure capital untouched by any economic activity whatever. In this utopia (dystopia) are no invigorating tensions between creditors and debtors, that chapters 4 and 5 recount negatively (warfare) or hopefully (household subsistence). Instead there is a permanent deflation aimed via keeping Bitcoin scarce –like the old gold standard that perennially favoured so-called creditors. The algorithm ‘running’ the show gives Bitcoin liberation from third parties (authorities) that try to control money creation. Bitcoin aims to refuse debt as the source of money issue, to make it a fixed commodity. But the temptation to hoard Bitcoin makes it volatile, unbalanced and dangerous. Third parties enable ‘a chain of signifiers’ that the algorithm abolishes – into Hayek’s notion of money as ‘absolute property’. Bitcoin is fully disembedded from lively social relations; it is a ‘heavy’ and anti-social currency, not the money as light as a mere intermediary.