On 10 June 2018, Swiss voters decided on the initiative "For crisis-proof money: money creation by the National Bank only!", better known as the Sovereign Money initiative (Vollgeld in German). Championed by the Monetary Modernisation association (MoMo), a civil-society committee without backing from the major parties, it was filed in December 2015 with over 110,000 signatures.
The initiative sought to overhaul how the banking system works. Today commercial banks create most of the book money by granting credit. The text aimed to strip banks of that power and grant the Swiss National Bank (SNB) alone the monopoly on money creation, including electronic money. The SNB would put money into circulation "debt-free", distributing it to the Confederation, the cantons or directly to citizens.
The initiators presented their project as insurance against financial crises, ten years after the 2008 debacle and the federal bailout of UBS. Current accounts fully backed by the central bank would make bank runs impossible. The Federal Council, Parliament and the SNB firmly opposed the initiative as dangerous, experimental and a threat to the central bank independence.
The verdict was severe: the initiative was rejected by 75.7 percent of voters and by every canton, with a low turnout of around 34 percent — a sign of the topic complexity.
|
▲ Cantons that accepted
No canton accepted the initiative.
|
▼ Cantons that rejected
All 26 cantons and half-cantons. The sharpest rejection in central Switzerland (Obwalden, Nidwalden, Uri: over 80 percent no); Geneva was the most favourable canton, with around 40 percent yes.
|
Actors and personalities
|
▲ Yes camp
• Monetary Modernisation association (MoMo) (initiative committee)
• Heterodox economists and civil-society circles
• Scattered support among Greens and SP (no party slogan)
|
▼ No camp
• Federal Council (Ueli Maurer, head of FDF)
• Thomas Jordan (SNB Chairman)
• SVP, FDP, CVP, GLP, BDP and nearly all parties
• economiesuisse, Swiss Bankers Association
|
Arguments and verdicts
|
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp)
Sovereign money ends bank runs « With sovereign money, money in accounts would be safe, no longer mere payment promises from banks » — MoMo association argumentation, 2018 ✗ Argument refuted The thesis could not be tested since the initiative was rejected, but the scenario it targeted recurred: in March 2023 Credit Suisse, a systemic bank, collapsed amid a deposit flight — exactly the kind of panic the initiators wanted to prevent. The status quo thus revealed its vulnerability. Source : SWI swissinfo, La Vie économique (2023) The current system privatises money creation « Money creation must return to the community, not to private banks » — Sovereign Money initiative committee ✗ Argument refuted Rejected, the initiative brought no transfer of money-creation power. Commercial banks still create most book money through credit; the institutional framework remained strictly unchanged. Source : SNB, admin.ch |
▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp)
The initiative would threaten the SNB’s independence « The SNB would face heightened political pressure to finance public spending » — Thomas Jordan, SNB Chairman, 2018 ✓ Argument confirmed It stayed theoretical but coherent: by entrusting the SNB with "debt-free" money issuance to the state, the text would indeed have exposed the central bank to political financing demands. The preserved independence of the SNB remained a recognised pillar of Swiss monetary policy. Source : SNB, Federal Council, Le Temps Credit would become scarcer and dearer « By limiting credit possibilities, banks would have to turn to costlier funding sources » — Federal Council, 2018 campaign message ✓~ Partly confirmed Not directly verifiable, lacking application. But international experience and academic analyses (KOF, IMF) confirmed that a shift to sovereign money would likely have raised the cost of and rationed credit. The argument remains plausible without being fully demonstrable. Source : KOF/ETH, IMF, economiesuisse The current system is solid and reformable « Post-2008 reforms strengthened the banks without a monetary revolution » — Banking circles and Federal Council, 2018 ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted: the fall of Credit Suisse in 2023 exposed the limits of the "too big to fail" regime and forced a public bailout, proving the system was not as robust as portrayed. The Confederation had to create an emergency public liquidity-backstop mechanism. Source : SIF, SWI swissinfo, RTS (2023) |
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 2 Refuted |
| ! | The status quo showed its cracks In March 2023 the collapse of Credit Suisse and its forced takeover by UBS confirmed that a bank run remained possible — precisely the risk the initiators meant to eliminate. But since the proposed remedy was never applied, it cannot be claimed it would have prevented it. Source : SWI swissinfo, La Vie économique (2023) |
| ~ | Strengthened, not revolutionised, regulation After 2023 the Confederation equipped Switzerland with a public liquidity-backstop mechanism for systemic banks and launched a revision of the "too big to fail" regime. A pragmatic response, far from the radical overhaul sovereign money advocated. Source : SIF, Federal Council (2023-2024) |
| ✓ | The SNB independence preserved By rejecting the initiative, voters maintained the separation between monetary policy and state financing. The SNB kept its independence, a principle the 2023 crisis did not call into question. Source : SNB, admin.ch |
Seven years on, the ballot verdict looks clear, but the underlying debate is not. Voters massively rejected the radical monetary experiment proposed by sovereign money as too risky and too abstract. On that point the rejection was unequivocal, and the SNB independence — at the heart of the No camp fears — was preserved.
Yet history dealt the winners an irony: in March 2023 the collapse of Credit Suisse gave brutal relevance to the worst-case scenario the initiators had waved. The bank run they wanted to make impossible occurred, forcing the state into an emergency rescue. The status quo defended in 2018 proved less solid than advertised.
Still, nothing proves sovereign money would have averted this crisis, and economic analyses keep pointing to its likely adverse effects on credit. The initiators diagnosis was sharper than their remedy.
The debate has not vanished: reforming the "too big to fail" regime and regulating systemic banks remain on the federal agenda. Sovereign money lost the vote, but raised a question reality eventually reopened.