Are you saying that if we accept that notes/reserves can be redeemed by using them to pay interest/dues (but not taxes?) or by exchanging them for each other, then it becomes clear that they are liabilities of the CB?

Sure. "Returning to issuer" is clear. It is "maturity" that I find difficult to explain. Not that surprisingly, as there are many people who do not accept calling notes/reserve acct balances liabilities or debt of the CB in the first place. But we don't need to go there now.

I don't think "notes to reserve accounts" or vice versa has anything to do with maturity. I would call it a technical change between two account types. Whether paying dues can be seen as maturing of the debt can be debated. I feel neither perpetual nor zero works well. Non-defined maturity, perhaps?

Thanks, JP! You gave me some extra motivation to work with writing about the Accounting View (because if you get it, then you get that Bitcoin is not a currency at all, but money misunderstood - just pure speculation, as you say. I think Crypto will be the Tulips of the 21st century. Insanity.

A late comment, but I'll try. First I agreed with you, but then I started thinking: How is cash (say, Fed notes) due at the request of the bearer? Or banks' reserve accounts at the Fed? I'm thinking both can be redeemed by the decision of the Fed to sell some of its assets (at request of issuer).

OK, got it. Now I produce spam on both platforms, I'm afraid.

Thanks for the great post, Brian! I'm trying to resurrect the comments section in your blog. Feel free to reply when you find time.