The security of money systems

[void4]

Are the differences in security cost an illusion? If a system faces adversaries which devote a certain amount of resources to an attack, isn't the cost of preventing it the same?

Todo:

• differentiate social and physical/technical attacks
• security cost may vary by participant depending on the nature of the system (cash-hoarding central bank needs steel safes, a person with a dollar in their hand not so much)
• Zarutian: differentiate attack vs defense cost

How does an institution ((central) bank, securities depository, insurer, sovereign, any type of company really) decide how many resources to devote to self-protection?

How did a treasurer know which and how many resources to allocate to the safekeeping of his treasury and the transportation of money for the purposes of trade and taxation?

With physical security, there seems to be a law diminishing returns, because hiring 10x more guards might reduce the security of the system (defection).

An instance where the self-preservation failed: https://www.dtcc.com/annuals/2013/superstorm-sandy-recovery/index.php

The cost of destroying a system involves not only disabling the technical basis that supports it, but also the beliefs that enable it.