And How Does It Differ from Smart Contracts or Turing-Completeness?
The Question: If smart contracts are Turing complete, and thus capable of expressing any rule-based logic, what’s the point of talking about an “economic grammar”? Isn’t that just another way of saying programmable economic logic?
The Answer: Turing-completeness means you can, in theory, express any computable function. But it tells you nothing about what kind of system you're building, how its logic is shared, or who can meaningfully participate in it.
We use the term economic grammar to emphasize that economic systems—like languages—have not only formal rules (syntax), but also shared meanings (semantics), and socially embedded uses (pragmatics). Grammar, unlike code alone, is both technical and expressive. It shapes both what can be done and what can be understood, both how a protocol behaves and how subjects relate to it.
1. A Note on Origins: Why Economic Grammar?
The term economic grammar didn’t originate as a theoretical assertion, but as a working tool, born from the need to collaborate across disciplines that do not naturally share a language. Our work unfolds at the intersection of protocol design, political economy, finance, game design and media theory. To move coherently across these terrains, we needed a shared conceptual structure, one that could bridge formal logic and political semantics, operational design and subjective meaning.