Waterworks of Money

We talk about earning money as water and swimming in cash.

Uh, the assets can be frozen, fortunes can vaporize.

We talk about a trickle down economy, financial draughts.

It's, this metaphor is already, uh, Everywhere.

You're listening to another episode of the Future Money Podcast presented

by the Intellectual Foundation, where we invite people of all backgrounds

and disciplines to imagine what a financially inclusive future might be.

I'm Hollis Wong Ware.

I'm Labelle Karama.

In this episode, we are in conversation with Carline

Kingsma from Waterworks of Money.

A collective based in the Netherlands.

Waterworks of Money is a project that uses the metaphor of money as water.

This visualization created by artist Carline Kingmeyer in collaboration

with Linde and Thomas Bolle provides a beautiful accessible map of

money and how it flows, or floods, or evaporates within our society.

In this episode, we discuss the role of artists in making consequential

topics such as monetary systems and financial structures more accessible

and engaging to a broader audience.

We explore the necessary themes to spark a larger goal and discuss

the three feature scenarios created by the Waterworks project.

My name is Carline Kimmerer and I'm a cartographer of society, which means

that I make maps, cartographies, but not the traditional maps that

you know, which map out mountain regions or cities or roads and rivers.

I map the invisible structures and the invisible architecture and infrastructures

of our society, such as the laws that govern our institutions or the, uh, uh,

or bureaucracies or, um, uh, yeah, other kinds of rules or the flows of money,

for instance, which are also because they're digital, uh, uh, mainly invisible.

Uh, and what I do by mapping all those, uh, architectures is, uh,

trying to, um, show people how these systems work in order to, uh, uh,

make them, uh, definitely in the case of the monetary system and the

financial system, to bring them back to the, uh, arena after public debate.

And I make these maps, uh, always in collaboration with, uh, with others,

with experts, with Uh, with journalists, uh, so these, uh, cooperation teams

are, uh, well, we have the minimum of three, uh, but, uh, it, uh, and these

three, uh, persons, which is also the case in the project that we worked on

for the last, uh, A couple of years.

Um, yeah, those projects, they, uh, um, we do the research together.

And, uh, outside that collaboration of three, there are more

alliances, so to say, of all kinds of parties who, um, help us.

navigating through these complex structures of society.

How did you end up in that field?

Was it a passion before and when you were younger, or did you one day research it

and thought, let me start, or let me try?

I think I always, uh, when I was young, I read a lot of science

fiction and I read a lot of utopias.

And the combination of those Two things, and I was always making drawings.

I think there are this aspect of what the laws and rules

are that govern our society.

I think, uh, that fascination already grew quite young.

And then I, uh, became an architect.

Architects are.

Actually, uh, the most disastrous makers of utopia because they make kind

of blueprint utopias, uh, like God, uh, looking at it from above and, uh,

thinking they can create worlds like that.

Uh, and when I was an architect, I, I was using actually the language

of architecture to tell stories about these invisible structures.

So, uh, language is a very strong, architecture is a very strong

language, especially already in metaphors, for instance.

So when you look at, uh, a lot of biblical metaphors, such as the Tower

of Babel, they're all, uh, in the end.

conveyed by an architecture.

And we also use it in our language, so there's a threshold, or a door that

opens, or a window of opportunity, and the language in which we talk

about our lives is very much imbued by architecture, architectural metaphors.

And I started researching our system of education and after that, our

healthcare systems and, and then during, uh, all these different projects, it

always somehow came down to money.

Uh, so the systems, uh, for instance, how our educational system functions

or does not function at the moment, and how our healthcare systems,

uh, work, it's very much related to, uh, the architecture of money.

And the architecture of money is a, quite a complex one, our,

our financial, monetary, fiscal system are like, uh, yeah.

All kinds of intertwined, uh, networks, so to say, or, or architectures.

Uh, and so I knew that at one point I had to, uh, address this topic.

What was your first map?

Uh, the first map was a history of the utopian tradition.

Actually very much because I, I studied 42, 43 utopian projects.

And I tried to relate them to, uh, the architecture of knowledge,

which is a one to one link.

So the utopian projects of antiquity, for instance, they all

have this pyramid kind of shape.

So you have philosophers on the top and beneath that, you know, that you have

lawmakers and below that you have the workers and the, and so on and so on.

They, they, uh, this hierarchical structure is the structure of

the pyramids and the architecture has, in that time, has evolved.

very much this linear, uh, structure, uh, the architecture of knowledge has a

linear structure, and then through time you see that these, uh, utopian stories,

they change in In outline, so to say, and these structures of knowledge and

also the structures of how we perceive beauty, which architecture is vital.

They also started to change up until today, where the structure of

knowledge has become a network from a pyramid to a tree to a network.

And you see that these utopian visions actually come along.

So I was, and I was also trying to see how the world that we live in is also in a way

shaped between our Yeah, our fears and our belief and our beliefs or our fears and

our hopes, um, which are often articulated in utopia or dystopian projects, uh, or

hell and heaven or, uh, uh, yeah, however you make this distinction, but the things

that we fear and the things that we hope for and these things that we fear and

the things that we hope for, they're like twin brothers or twin sisters.

They very much look alike.

So, so I, I tried first to make this history.

of Utopia as a sort of base for my, my practice on how to make.

narrative, uh, reflections of our society and the things that we can steer towards.

Yeah, that's, that's wonderful.

I think I find your work to be so interesting because, you

know, coming from an architecture background, you're essentially

trying to map what is unmappable.

We think of maps oftentimes as physical geographies that we're not familiar with,

but really what you're attempting to do is make sense out of what are often.

systems.

Um, and so that's what I found so interesting when I first

encountered the work that you, um, illustrated and brought to life.

The waterworks of money project that, um, was exhibited at

the future money open studios.

We missed you at the summit.

Um, yeah.

I know.

Well, it's amazing.

You were working, you were working on a, on a, on a greater masterpiece there.

Um, but I found your work to be so fascinating and so did.

Others as well, because the work that you've created and the cartography of the

financial system is so dense, so complex, and yet has a very, as you were saying

before, very clear metaphor utilizing, um, as money through the system.

So I was curious if you could just kind of take us back to the origin of that.

It sounds like it was, it was the natural progression.

You saw whether you were trying to understand utopias and a theoretical

sense, or trying to understand more concrete systems, like the system

of education, everything kind of boiled down to money in the end.

So to illustrate money is.

Totally made sense, but I'm sure it was a very daunting task.

So I'm curious if you can just kind of talk about how, um, how the, how it

started and maybe like a couple of initial challenges that you had when you first

started out with this ambitious project.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, well, uh, it already started in 2020 and then I thought, okay, I have

to start this topic, uh, of money.

Uh, and then I started reading, uh, about the topic, but I very soon got lost in

all the literature and all the theoretical schools and all the historical events.

There are so many, there was so much that I I could not organize in my head.

So after half a year, I, I started a more intense, uh, collaboration

with a financial journalist, Thomas Bollen, who writes for follow

them, a Dutch, uh, uh, journalistic platform called follow the money.

And a, uh, professor or lector, New Finance, Daniel van der Linde,

who also started a, a movement within the Netherlands for a public

money system around, uh, 2016.

Uh, and who took that quite far up until the, uh, the moment where it

was also discussed in the parliament.

So these two, uh, people helped me navigate in the beginning.

And we did research, I think, for one and a half years.

Before even starting to draw, talking to multiple banks, pension funds,

all kinds of players in the financial markets, financial regulators, tax

authorities, politicians, all the players within that financial landscape,

so to say, and from there we started mapping out Um, Yeah, flow diagrams.

So with the Watermarks of Money project, uh, there's a clear metaphor that you

use, and you had mentioned it earlier, in terms of the metaphor of water to be

money, and to be that which is powering the financial system, and it's seen

in a really elaborate Illustrative way in the work that you created.

So I'm curious if you could talk more about, you know, making the world of

money more understandable and what those leading metaphors were that

you employed in your illustrations.

So we indeed use this metaphor of water, uh, and we, we do that actually because

this metaphor is already, uh, used by all the players within this financial world.

So, um.

We talk about earning money as water and swimming in cash, uh, the assets

can be frozen, fortunes can vaporize.

We talk about a trickle down economy, financial draught.

It's, this metaphor is already everywhere.

And also when it becomes more technical.

We still use this, this water metaphor, so we talk about liquidity and this analogy

with water is, is further strengthened when we talk about, um, when big financial

institutions collapse, the credit dries up, the liquidity was drained, uh,

we talk about a flow of money, about profit streams, about, about flooded

markets, and And even, yeah, even, so every step it becomes more technical.

So also when we talk about oceans, blue ocean and red ocean, we talk about

ripples and the tides, uh, about waves.

So this metaphor actually, I think, I think it was almost not possible to use

another metaphor, uh, when you truly want to show how money flows through society.

Definitely.

No, it makes sense.

And when you, when you lay out all those examples, it definitely makes sense.

But I think the beauty of the work that you and your collaborators.

brought to life is that you can hear these metaphors, but they're always

used in very like discordant ways.

But then bringing a visualizer to it really does make, again,

this very like complex and kind of by design nonsensical system.

or at least like able to, you know, to, to visualize and to

understand, um, with more clarity.

So I'm curious, like what, what were some of the challenges that you faced

in creating such a massive work?

What felt like the particular pain points that were, that you had to be

creative to navigate your way through?

Well, first of all, I mean a map is always a simplification.

If it's not a simplification, the map would be as big as

society itself, or even bigger.

Uh, so it's always a simplification.

And to make a simplification, which is not a reduction, but is, is somehow

something which has some kind of essence, which is true to, yeah, the

system as we see it in real life.

Yeah, and, and, and on the other hand, the map also is only accepted

when a lot of people agree on that the map is somehow, um, true to

society or to the real situation.

And because we made this map in collaboration with so many parties, we

constantly had to iterate the diagrams.

So before there was the map, there were hundreds of diagrams of all

the, uh, the subsystems and they had to come together and every step

of the way we had to reiterate and, and reflect on what we did, uh, with

all the parties that we talked to.

So with, with the bankers, with the scientists, with the,

with the investment funds.

And so you have to be very thorough, which is, uh, yeah, which is a lot

of work and takes a lot of time.

And I think in the end, um, so the work is of course quite.

The premise of the work is that, uh, the growing inequality that we see

in society today, uh, is actually for quite a substantial part created

by the design of our money system.

And that players such as banks and pension funds play a substantial part in that.

But even though this message is quite tough, because we

created this map together.

with all these parties, and because it is a systemic approach, not a psychological

approach, or uh, it's not a story about bad bankers, but about architecture,

uh, I think the story was also accepted by also this, this bitter pill, so to

say, or this, this, this tough story was accepted by all these institutions.

What type of change has it brought along?

I mean, if it's being accepted by all of these institutions?

Or did it bring, is it a dialogue or is it more?

So we, um, we organized.

many workshops and lectures and all those kind of things to actually

measure change is always difficult.

Of course, what I hope is, uh, that we inspired, uh, well, definitely

we brought a subject to the table.

So when you, for instance, at the Rabobank, um, which opened its doors to

us and we could interview everyone within the bank and we did also, um, yeah.

And they also, uh, have the work printed seven by nine meter.

which is the biggest print that we made in the lobby of their main office in Utrecht.

And they, they will publish a paper on inequality and the banking system,

which is, um, well, when I started this reach with research, it was still

a very difficult topic to talk about.

And, uh, now they, we did a, uh, we hosted.

Dialogue sessions in September last year, uh, also together with, uh, yeah,

that, that was also part of the grants that, uh, of the Intelligent Fund.

We organized these dialogue sessions with them.

And, uh, after that, there was a research team on, put

by the Rabobank on this topic.

And they worked with eight people on this paper published by Rabo Research.

And I think the start of that research was.

the work that we did and the story that we made.

I'm not sure to what it will lead.

I mean, the improvements that need to be made within these financial

systems are very big and often very political and, uh, and also complex.

So they, they can very often not be done by only one party.

Uh, but it's a problem.

The problem is in the chain, the chain of, of, of, so, uh,

these are very big changes, but.

Getting all the parties to the table and, uh, having them see the topic,

acknowledge the problem and research their role in it and possible solutions.

Well, I hope it can be a first step to, uh, making some improvements.

Uh, for us, you are the artist, but I wonder where do you believe

you fit into and what is your role?

Yeah, of course.

That's the thing.

What is your role?

And mine is to, to map out all this expertise and to lay the puzzle and

to let people reflect on the whole.

And when you, when you, yeah, when you look at the whole, the whole

thing, you see certain mechanisms.

Yeah.

Uh, and these mechanisms, which, as I said, run through multiple institutions

and are created by, uh, certain conditions that are determined by also

regulators, and also politicians, and also, uh, I don't know, uh, citizens.

Like, by, by who, it's a whole complex organism, and you have to really zoom

out in order to see those mechanisms.

I truly believe, especially in the, like, throwing in the function of

art, it's the, being the fire starter.

And that's also where I come actually into, I wanted to ask the next

question is, how do you believe that artists can play a role in making,

like, these topics about monetary systems and financial structures

more accessible and more engaging?

Like, how do you think they could start Like if other artists have an

interest in it, to start researching, investigating, um, the dialogue.

Like how would Yeah, that's a good question.

I'm, I, I, I, I'm always wondering.

Yeah, that's a question that I ask myself constantly, of course.

Every artist will do it in a different way.

Uh, some people are quite good in telling these psychological, very zoomed in

stories of, of victims, for instance, which, I mean, these kinds of stories

were always Do well because we are able to feel, feel empathy for, for

these victims and, and from there on start the trigger to change something.

Uh, for me, uh, also with my background as an architect, I try to

focus on something, which is often the more difficult story to tell.

And it's the systemic stories.

Yeah.

And they are of course, for, for a lot of people, they're also the boring

stories if you, especially when you write about those kind of stories.

People will get lost and it will not be very, it will be a bit boring maybe,

or it will become quite technical.

And I hope that by translating it into something which is also

beautiful, like these drawings.

Um, that I, um, yeah, seduce people, entice, um, give this topic 20 minutes

of your time and to watch an animation, which takes you through the map and

that you can see, whoa, this topic that I thought that is something way out of

my scope of, uh, interest, or that is something that it will not influence me

is actually influencing my everyday life.

And it's influencing the world in which I live.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I mean, I think what you provide in the visualization and the artful explanation

and journey really illustrating the journey of how money moves in our systems.

Um, I think it's both.

It provides accessibility and it also provides inclusion.

Like you're including people that don't have the technical

understanding or might be intimidated.

By the theories and the dryness of the research and the scholarship and um,

the jargon And I think what you do is you include folks who we all participate

in the financial system, right?

But so few of us feel confident to even dare to understand it And so yeah, I'm

curious like you've displayed this work like we were fortunate enough to have

Not just the waterworks of money as it's been but also these kind of envisioned

future scenarios the three future scenarios that you each brought to life

kind of forecasting or projecting what could be possible and it kind of reminds

me of the description of Your first work that you were talking about Right.

Um, and so i'm curious like Yeah dystopia So i'm curious.

Yeah, like what the reaction has been like how i'd love to hear about like

Any kind of interaction with the piece from folks that aren't otherwise in the

conversation like people who are not Economists or people who were this is

not their area of study or expertise What have you seen and experienced

when people experience the work?

You're completely right in saying that it's about inclusion because

Um, we, that's, that's, that's totally what we are trying to do.

So make this topic accessible again, not only as a participant in this financial

system, but also as a voting citizen.

So it should also be a topic in the sense that we can collectively

decide this money system in this specific architecture is not.

It's not working for us, it's not inclusive, it's not, uh, uh, uh,

contributing to a sustainable economy.

Um, we want something else.

And then you come to the, to the next step, which is maybe even

harder than understanding the current system, which is already hard.

Um, and that's envisioning or being able to imagine something different.

And, as I said already in the introduction, uh, about this first work,

The History of Utopia, uh, envisioning a future scenario, or a future, uh, is,

uh, something, is a tricky business.

Because you, um, always make a, Simplification, of course, uh, of

a very large system which has grown over time, um, yeah, and you are,

you are, um, proposing something new.

So what, yeah, what we decided to do is to come up with three

completely different future scenarios.

Yeah, they are on an ideological scale, they are, uh, completely

different from each other.

They propose three completely different kind of solutions to, so

they also have a different experience.

Uh, analysis of what is wrong in our now.

Yeah, and, and, oh, and what Hollis asked, what I, what I forgot now to,

uh, reflect upon is, we, what we saw in also, by, by presenting these, uh,

different future scenarios, uh, because they're also, they're all, all three

of them are also a bit funny and a bit weird, uh, but they have very different,

Systemic solutions, uh, people responded quite, uh, well, also always with a bit,

a bit laughing and sometimes also, uh, saying that, that, that the solutions

are also quite scary, but then they also came to the conclusion that the system

that we have now is also quite extreme.

So that's also a very beautiful, there's a beautiful conclusion, of course,

uh, uh, we have now a system in which private companies, our banks create.

the substantial part of our money.

That's quite an extreme scenario if you put them as one of the, as

a fourth scenario next to the three scenarios that we also proposed.

So that's already, yeah, it becomes actually a different lens again through

which you can look to our society now.

And it gives you some tools to talk about Your options for the future

does this answer your question?

It does and I think what I really enjoyed hearing about what you just shared is the

humor and kind of the ability to I think again like we think of these systems As

so severe And so intellectual and I think that's like, you know back to the earlier

conversation we were having about the the power of bringing an artistic lens to

these dialogues like Being able to have like a full range of like human reaction

to exactly as you said like the extremity like the extreme nature of The financial

system as it is today that we normalize but ultimately when we see it visualized

we recognize like how Extreme it is.

So I think that there's there's something really to be said about

like, how can we kind of infuse?

human understanding into finance period and not pretend like it's just this, you

know, fully objective, empirical, and.

You know, the rightness of finance really actually seeing it for what it is, which

is kind of the absurdity of it all.

And that's kind of what I, what I'm realizing as I experience the waterworks

of money, it does feel absurdist, almost like how deeply complex and then like

when you're seeing, you know, like, oh, the water drains out and then

people are standing there naked or.

You know, like, or they're, or they're drowning, you know, just

there's, there's this kind of, you see it in a more human lens.

And, and I think that is the power of art.

And that's the reason why, you know, for us, it's so important to draw

this connection between creativity and envisioning financial futures is like, we

actually need to show up as people who are experiencing these systems and not just

with our very like analytical left brain.

It's like, what is the actual human cost?

Of participating in the financial system.

And I feel like that's what I'm hearing.

You say is like being able to lead with like humor.

And at least, at the very least, being able to kind of like laugh

at the absurdity of it all actually allows us to start thinking about,

okay, well, what would the system look like that's not so absurd?

And that's very empowering also, being able to look at the absurdity

of what is happening right now.

I mean, that's how all these stories start.

That's actually how the most, how the first Utopia, which is the

one of Thomas More of 1514, which is called Utopia, also starts.

It's a reflection on the absurdity and the absurdity.

injustice of, uh, England of that time.

And then he sets off to find the new land, Aotopos, the new, the new

land, and there they start anew.

And that's also how these three utopians that we made, or these three future

scenarios, they also start like, they, they, first they reflect on Yeah, they

make all these crazy holidays, for instance, in our stories, in which they

have to recite, uh, in which there are games, uh, and the one, uh, the winner

is the one who can recite the most pages of Basel III, which they call

Babel III, because it's, This bloated work, which is three times the Bible,

and it's completely unreadable, like Babel comes from, the etymology comes

from Babel, like, not understanding.

There are these jokes in which you, like, they reflect together on how

crazy it was back in the day, which is of course now, that they had

this well known failed experiment.

Which was called, uh, uh, the Euro, which was a megalomaniac part, I don't

know, and the whatever it takes, uh, policies that came with it or, and

that's of course only one scenario and another scenario reflects on the

now in a completely different light.

Um, we made one with Janos Varoufakis, I think that's my,

I think that's my favorite.

Yeah, and in, in that one actually, because he, in his proposal, he,

um, he says that shares are non tradable, uh, which, which sort of

makes a ruin of the, the stock market.

And, uh, and the stock market becomes this, uh, is a sort of central

link within this completely grown out of hand, uh, financial system.

And you see in that map in the back, the ruin of this financial landscape of the,

which was like, uh, or like the 80 percent has become a ruin because we don't need

such a big financial landscape, which is only extracting from our real economy.

And then they, you can make a Sunday afternoon walk through the

park and it is, it's, it's a huge biodiversity park because this financial

landscape was for multiple years.

flooded with liquidity.

I mean, there's there are all these kind of Yeah, I think it's really funny.

And in another one, I mean, they have this holiday, which is called

the end of central banking day.

Uh, and they are, uh, um, they are, they are, um, walking in the streets,

all dressed up as central bankers with a boring suit and a gray suit,

gray suit and a, and a, and a tie.

And, and they are, um, dragging this huge.

balloon, which has, which, which looks like Alan Greenspan.

Uh, and yeah, I mean, there are all these small things, which

are of course a bit absurd, but then they have a quite serious.

Definitely.

Yeah.

I think it's the ability to comment, right?

Again, like, I think it's so difficult for those of us who are not.

Studied economists to feel like we even have the ability to understand

our financial systems that we operate within, let alone comment

on them or even critique them.

Um, and I think that that's, you know, the beauty in what we were just talking

about earlier, like in terms of.

The ability for this work to be an act of inclusion itself.

And so for us, like the future money project is really, it's

all about financial inclusion.

And if we're creating financial systems in the future that

are not leaving people behind.

That are rejecting this idea that economic, um, you know, disparity is

essential for progress and growth, right?

We're thinking about how do we create financial systems that genuinely respect

and seek to bring along everybody.

Um, so I'm curious, like from your perspective.

As a cartographer, as somebody who's really invested years into making this

system of maybe not completely sensical, at least like visually understandable.

Um, what is your vision for a financially inclusive future?

I think it's very problematic.

That's that there are all these mechanisms which are highly, uh, unfair and, uh, And,

and, and contribute to growing inequality.

So I think we should look for a, for a system in which that

is not happening anymore.

In which we don't create these mountains of debt.

In which it's not easy for the rich people to become even more richer.

In which we do not tax work more than wealth.

There are so many injustices and there are so many solutions.

I find it difficult to, in a short time, sketch the perfect, uh, future scenario.

It's not about kind of like finding perfection in it.

It's more about if you would like lie on your sofa, you would dream

about what the future would be.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

No, maybe, uh, starting from what I see as a central problem, um, Which is, uh,

that it's mostly commercial, uh, uh, parties now, uh, commercial banks who

create the money and also allocate the money and also determine who have access

to this, uh, money system, even to, or even to a bank account or to a loan.

Uh, I think that's very problematic.

Because for a long time we were all convinced that the

market could solve anything.

Uh, and now, now it turns out that it's Yeah, well, not, not true.

And, um, uh, these commercial parties, they have mainly,

uh, a financial interest.

They mainly want to see financial returns and, uh, they create money

for projects which are, which don't, uh, yeah, which have, um,

financial gains and not so much societal or ecological gains.

And I think, yeah, I think that rights to create and allocate money should not lay

in the hands of only commercial parties.

I think that's Digital Europe could be a solution to that, but not how it is,

uh, yeah, not the design as it is today.

And then there are multiple solutions to that problem, I think.

And one of them is to create a public money system next to this

private money, money system.

Another one is to, I don't know, to set up different kind of rules

to Uh, do more credit guidance, uh, so that money flows to things that.

society also benefits from, and not only to, uh, things that

are commercially, uh, working.

That, that should be one of the key.

And, and, and also within this system, it's not only the allocation that is

wrong, but it's also, of course, this banking sector is very unstable and,

uh, is completely backed and held alive by, uh, the lifelines of the, uh.

Yeah, it's unfair and problematic as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, there are constantly these private gains and public costs.

Well, I think that's so obviously unfair, whether you are a socialist or a liberal.

doesn't matter what kind of ideological spectrum you're where

you are at the ideological scale.

Uh, I think for every one that's, if you truly understand that you,

you can agree that that's not fair.

I completely agree.

Thank you so much for answering the next question.

It's a very difficult question because we ask people to three

and then it's like, but no,

it's a, yeah, it's a, but thank you so much for answering this one.

I'm wondering if you want to just share any work, obviously you are, you

just had a baby so that's some, that's some new work that you are developing

currently, but I'm wondering, um, I'm wondering if you want to share, um,

what's next for you, um, what other, what other systems you're hoping

to, to, uh, map out in the future?

Well, we're still, um, Staying quite close to this topic, I

think we're still finishing also some products at the moment.

They are almost done on the future scenarios.

We reiterated them over the last months and now we made these audio recordings

and we still have to turn some of them into videos and they become again a

talking product to discuss this, uh, the architecture of the financial system.

And I think the next steps, which are also, of course, um, we had a lot of

conversations over the last weeks.

Well, Martijn also in Costa Rica, for instance, at the summit,

and there, there were some also multiple new ideas to work on.

And one of them was the architecture of the law that created the rules

for the economy and the financial system that we have today.

So sort of the scaffolding of the system that we have.

how the law, um, facilitates this architecture and, uh,

also increases inequality.

So I think that could be a story which is completely intertwined with this story

that we already made, with which, yeah, absolutely additional layer in the map.

That's great.

Well, we're excited to stay tuned to the work of your collective.

Um, and yeah, just, we saw, we got to see firsthand how

impactful the waterworks of money.

Work is and then how can people follow along with your work?

Like if they either want to experience waterworks of money or

if they want to stay tuned for your next work Um, yeah, good question.

Good that you bring it up.

Uh, We have a website.

It's called the waterwork waterworks of money And, uh, there's also at the bottom,

uh, a list for a mailing list in which if we make a new drawing and if we make

a new story, you will get a notification.

And then the future scenarios, where can they be seen?

Um, they, um, they will also be shared on that platform.

They are already there.

Uh, the short versions that we did the reiteration after Costa Rica,

and they will be posted as soon as they are ready, which will be

very soon.

Thank you, Caroline.

Really appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for being part of the Future Money podcast and being

part of the Future Money cohort.

Thank you for this conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you for tuning in to the Future Money podcast.

We hope you will enjoy another one of our episodes.

Make sure to subscribe and like the podcast on Spotify, Apple Music, or

whenever you listen to your pods.