I understand your point and sympathise, but Handling cash isn't free. yes, for small traders and personal use, cash is effectively free. but as soon as you start to put it into the bank, it incurs a cost.

Depending on where you are, this cost might be hidden from you. (banking in the USA for example is expensive compared to the UK)

However as you point out, those companies that provide PoS terminals take either a monthly fee, or a percentage cut.

> I understand your point and sympathise, but Handling cash isn't free.

Neither are roads, railways, wastewater treatment, communication lines or electricity. Money is infrastructure, and it makes sense for government to control and subsidize these to secure free and equal access, as well as ensure that developments of them occur in ways that benefit all members of society.

It's also just a control thing. When private enterprises control (and create) money, they will do so based on their own interests. These might not align with the best interests of society at large.

Is it really your experience that the market fails to cater to the interests of the people, and politicians are uniquely capable of it?

Politicians can’t print a dollar without abusing it to promote religion (“In God We Trust”), funding war, or handing it out to get reelected.

Removing "payable to the bearer on demand" seems especially relevant.

Well, in Keynesian analysis, the private enterprises are supposed to create money. The gov't manages how much they create though reserve requirements.

"As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. "

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

So would switching it to a non-profit government body? NPCI (India's quasi-government retail payments infrastructure company) is a non-profit and they're looking to switch to a for-profit.

It worked quite well, I'd say.

Yes, instead let's have a government payment system with funds expiration date.