Bank Of England (CBDC) Central Bank Digital Currency -

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

So it turn's out the Bank of England is looking to launch it's very own CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) after doing some digging we look like were heading into the real of China where everything to do with your finances is tracked and on the "ledger"

Below is a copy of there paper dated March 2020 and signed by Mark Carney.  The 57 page document is the ground work into the inner working of how the system will operate and be launched and makes for stark reading into where the central banks are heading.

I believe that the COVID-19 outbreak will be the catalyst for them to want to remove cash from our society's the argument will be that cash spreads disease.

I wanted to draw attention to a specific section in the document.

Full Document Link

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020/central-bank-digital-currency-opportunities-challenges-and-design.pdf?la=en&hash=DFAD18646A77C00772AF1C5B18E63E71F68E4593

4.7 Privacy and data protection

It will be essential to consider how privacy is respected and how data is protected in a CBDC system. Privacy and
data protection is an issue that is of concern to policymakers in government and other authorities(5) and should be
considered carefully when designing CBDC.

Any CBDC system would need to be compatible with privacy regulations, such as the 2018 General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR), which would apply to the Bank of England, Payment Interface Providers and any
other firms providing CBDC‑related services. In simple terms, this means that users should have control over how
their data is used and who it is shared with. Any third‑party processing data will need to observe applicable data
protection legislation.

(5) In the UK, this would include the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO).

Other approaches to providing CBDC

An alternative to CBDC would be for private sector firms to issue liabilities which were fully backed by funds held
at the central bank. These firms would act as intermediaries between the central bank and the end‑users.
Providing that the regulatory framework ensures that these firms’ liabilities were always fully backed by funds at
the central bank, these liabilities could share many of the characteristics of a CBDC that is directly issued by the
central bank. However these liabilities would not be central bank money, as holders would not hold a direct claim
on the central bank.

Such an approach has been suggested by some stablecoin proposals. It has also been described by some
researchers as ‘synthetic CBDC’ (Adrian and Mancini‑Griffoli (2019)).

In line with the Financial Policy Committee’s principles for regulation of payments and expectations relating to
stablecoins, such an approach would require appropriate regulation and supervision to ensure that equivalent
standards apply as with existing forms of private money.

Discussion Paper: Central Bank Digital Currency March 2020 32

The appropriate degree of anonymity in a CBDC system is a political and social question, rather than a narrow
technical question. As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out
truly anonymous payments. However, CBDC could be designed to protect privacy and give users control over who
they share data with, even if CBDC payments are not truly anonymous (or secret). For example, a user may
legitimately want to make a payment to a supermarket without sharing their identity with the supermarket, as
this would allow the supermarket to build a picture of their shopping habits. In most cases, the payer should be
able to pay without revealing their identity to the payee. In this sense, they could have anonymity with regards to
other users, without having anonymity with regards to law enforcement.

Some discussions of CBDC assume that CBDC is equivalent to cash and so should offer the same degree of
anonymity in payments. When a payer hands over cash to a payee, for example in a shop, the payee does not
receive any data about the identity of the payer, and there is no digital record that links the payer and payee.(6)
But the fact that an in‑person cash payment provides an anonymous means of payment is a result of the nature of
this payment method. The Bank does not have a specific mandate to provide untraceable or anonymous payment
methods.

Thought's and comments welcome on this subject do you think this is the steps to full control over people and there spending?..

[1714057447]

1714057447

[1714057447]

1714057447

[1714057447]

1714057447

[1714057447]

1714057447

[exstasie]

Thought's and comments welcome on this subject do you think this is the steps to full control over people and there spending?..

This sums it up:

As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out truly anonymous payments.

Never before has AML been a consideration at the currency level. At the third party banking and money transmission level, sure, but now their plan is for every pound you own to your name to be clocked in the system and traced.

They think we're so stupid that all we care about is whether our local supermarket or Amazon is tracking our data.

The way I see things, these CBDCs will take decades to become pervasive in society. Right now and for the next few years they are purely experimental. Even once they are cleared for widespread usage, there is no way they will completely replace traditional currency. Liberal countries will not discriminate against the elderly that way. Any plans to phase out physical cash, I think, will take place over decades.

The silver lining there: Fiat currencies may be collapsing (or already collapsed) by the time they try to mandate cashless payments.

I believe that the COVID-19 outbreak will be the catalyst for them to want to remove cash from our society's the argument will be that cash spreads disease.

Our smart phones, credit and debit cards have been shown to be extensively germ-ridden. Seems like a ridiculous argument to me but I'm sure people will fall for it.

[Tylev]

The Central Bank of England wants to issue its national stable coin, based on their fkt sterling. This will be their previous currency, only in digital form. It would be foolish to expect that this stable coin will not be fully monitored and fully controlled by the government of this state. Just as the non-cash pound is controlled, their stable coin will be controlled. I do not see anything unusual or special in this.

[avikz]

I see a lot of people having high hopes on CBDC launch. Let me clear few things first,

1. CBDC will be a digital representation of fiat money
2. Some will use blockchain to implement the CBDC infrastructure but that will not be same as bitcoin or crypto blockchain
3. Government will have more transparent view of your funds and expenditures
4. What little privacy that cash used to provide - will be gone
5. Common people will it difficult to park their illegal income, if any
6. User privacy policy will be implemented to block any unwanted information sharing between the third party solution providers like Banks or NBFCs. But government authorities will be exempted from such policies.

Governments around the world are pushing towards CBDCs because of two reasons,

1. Less expensive than printing money
2. Bring holistic financial governance

Now if you still want to cheer, do it at your own risk!

[hugeblack]

I do not think that the repercussions of COVID-19 will accelerate the transition to a digital system, but rather lead to a slowing of the risk towards a new economic concept, especially if any economic stagnation occurs in the coming months.
Also, the argument about criticism leads to the spread of diseases. It seems to be frightening, because our phones are doing the same, and perhaps we will not witness a medical crisis soon.
The essential point is centralization, which makes the currencies repeat for the same current models with some differences such as stop printing money, cheaper fees, faster transfers, but completely different from cryptos.

[davis196]

A CBDC doesn't change anything.The central bank can still "produce" any amount of new money(digital or paper-it doesn't matter) and throw it to the banks.The central bank can still produce inflation and devaluate it's national currency.There only difference is that there aren't any printing machines and paper needed for the process.There won't be any global fixed cap of "digital money" supply and the central bank isn't limited by anything.

[Febo]

3. Government will have more transparent view of your funds and expenditures
4. What little privacy that cash used to provide - will be gone
5. Common people will it difficult to park their illegal income, if any

3. Not just government but anyone. Me you, your neighbour. Government can already right now get information from any bank about anyone, your neighbour cant.
4. Yes and also what privacy that banks offer will be gone.
5. Not just illegal but also legal. All your income and spending will be known to anyone.


Only way to prevent all this is to use opaque ledger crpytocurrencies.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The central bank can still "produce" any amount of new money(digital or paper-it doesn't matter) and throw it to the banks.

Exactly. In fact, moving to a purely digital currency will make it even easier for them to do so. Such a currency makes sense for the banks - easier to control, easier to print, cheaper to manage, no need for printing presses and similar, no money spent on fighting counterfeit notes, etc. It doesn't make sense for the user though, and it will be a privacy nightmare. We already know we can't trust governments with our data, and that they spy on us, monitor us, profile us. A currency like this will also tell the government exactly how much money you own and exactly what you spend it on. All privacy will go out the window.

I also worry about how a government could use this against people it deems "unsavory". We already know there are centralized crypto scams like EOS which can freeze your accounts and seize your coins if you do something they don't like. Why would a CBDC be any different? Criticize the government too much and you might just find you can no longer access your money...

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

In the document there is a section that says the bank will assume no risk if they go down this route unlike cash if someone was to take our a fraudulent loan or credit card the back could basically wipe the funds from existence giving them a no risk model going froward.

There are many worrying things that may come from this proposal going forward but why should a bank be allowed to assume a "no risk" position in the market.

I can see bitcoin really taking off if they move forward with this plan as people wake up and see there will be no financial privacy after the cash is removed from society.

I don't think the words "Bitcoin Solves This"  have ever has so much meaning as they do right now in the economic climate we're entering.

[exstasie]

In the document there is a section that says the bank will assume no risk if they go down this route unlike cash if someone was to take our a fraudulent loan or credit card the back could basically wipe the funds from existence giving them a no risk model going froward.

There are many worrying things that may come from this proposal going forward but why should a bank be allowed to assume a "no risk" position in the market.

When they refer to "risk‑free" they seem to be using it in the sense of counterparty risk. As in, the holders of GBP are in a risk-free position, but holders of a privately-issued GBP stablecoin are not:

CBDC may also provide safer payment services than new forms of privately issued money‑like instruments, such as stablecoins. Ensuring that the public has continued access to a risk‑free form of money issued by the Bank may be especially important in the future, and help to address some of the consequences of a decline in the use of physical cash.

Depending on the nature of assets backing the ‘coin’, and how they are held, the stablecoin may be unable to provide stability of value and may come with other risks (as discussed in Chapter 2.4). In contrast, a UK CBDC would be a new risk‑free form of (digital) pound sterling, issued by the central bank, and would therefore perform all the essential functions of money.

[Wenbing]

So it turn's out the Bank of England is looking to launch it's very own CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) after doing some digging we look like were heading into the real of China where everything to do with your finances is tracked and on the "ledger"

Below is a copy of there paper dated March 2020 and signed by Mark Carney.  The 57 page document is the ground work into the inner working of how the system will operate and be launched and makes for stark reading into where the central banks are heading.

I believe that the COVID-19 outbreak will be the catalyst for them to want to remove cash from our society's the argument will be that cash spreads disease.

I wanted to draw attention to a specific section in the document.

Full Document Link

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020/central-bank-digital-currency-opportunities-challenges-and-design.pdf?la=en&hash=DFAD18646A77C00772AF1C5B18E63E71F68E4593

4.7 Privacy and data protection

It will be essential to consider how privacy is respected and how data is protected in a CBDC system. Privacy and
data protection is an issue that is of concern to policymakers in government and other authorities(5) and should be
considered carefully when designing CBDC.

Any CBDC system would need to be compatible with privacy regulations, such as the 2018 General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR), which would apply to the Bank of England, Payment Interface Providers and any
other firms providing CBDC‑related services. In simple terms, this means that users should have control over how
their data is used and who it is shared with. Any third‑party processing data will need to observe applicable data
protection legislation.

(5) In the UK, this would include the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO).

Other approaches to providing CBDC

An alternative to CBDC would be for private sector firms to issue liabilities which were fully backed by funds held
at the central bank. These firms would act as intermediaries between the central bank and the end‑users.
Providing that the regulatory framework ensures that these firms’ liabilities were always fully backed by funds at
the central bank, these liabilities could share many of the characteristics of a CBDC that is directly issued by the
central bank. However these liabilities would not be central bank money, as holders would not hold a direct claim
on the central bank.

Such an approach has been suggested by some stablecoin proposals. It has also been described by some
researchers as ‘synthetic CBDC’ (Adrian and Mancini‑Griffoli (2019)).

In line with the Financial Policy Committee’s principles for regulation of payments and expectations relating to
stablecoins, such an approach would require appropriate regulation and supervision to ensure that equivalent
standards apply as with existing forms of private money.

Discussion Paper: Central Bank Digital Currency March 2020 32

The appropriate degree of anonymity in a CBDC system is a political and social question, rather than a narrow
technical question. As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out
truly anonymous payments. However, CBDC could be designed to protect privacy and give users control over who
they share data with, even if CBDC payments are not truly anonymous (or secret). For example, a user may
legitimately want to make a payment to a supermarket without sharing their identity with the supermarket, as
this would allow the supermarket to build a picture of their shopping habits. In most cases, the payer should be
able to pay without revealing their identity to the payee. In this sense, they could have anonymity with regards to
other users, without having anonymity with regards to law enforcement.

Some discussions of CBDC assume that CBDC is equivalent to cash and so should offer the same degree of
anonymity in payments. When a payer hands over cash to a payee, for example in a shop, the payee does not
receive any data about the identity of the payer, and there is no digital record that links the payer and payee.(6)
But the fact that an in‑person cash payment provides an anonymous means of payment is a result of the nature of
this payment method. The Bank does not have a specific mandate to provide untraceable or anonymous payment
methods.

Thought's and comments welcome on this subject do you think this is the steps to full control over people and there spending?..

From my deduction from that digital currency report is that the Reserve Bank will end up regulations and controlling the currency.
As such, it is not decentralised instead it's centralisation (1.2)

[abhiseshakana]

I do not think that the repercussions of COVID-19 will accelerate the transition to a digital system, but rather lead to a slowing of the risk towards a new economic concept, especially if any economic stagnation occurs in the coming months.
Also, the argument about criticism leads to the spread of diseases. It seems to be frightening, because our phones are doing the same, and perhaps we will not witness a medical crisis soon.
The essential point is centralization, which makes the currencies repeat for the same current models with some differences such as stop printing money, cheaper fees, faster transfers, but completely different from cryptos.

CBDC is fiat money in digital form, very different from the concept of decentralization with bitcoin. The point is that we lose confidence in the practices carried out by the authorities in regulating the production, distribution, and regulation of fiat money in a country. The tricks and intrigues of the government and the central bank are highly sensitive in the manipulation of money which we believe is the cause of the economic disparity.

All banks whether they are central banks or profit-oriented commercial banks are not services and conditions with the political content of the oligarchs. The use of CBDC will further facilitate the practices of money creation by the state. CBDC will not reduce our worries about the security of our assets.

[Broly46]

Nobody gonna care the fine print on this worthless crap, TLDR when airdrop and when can distribute into my wallet???

[squatz1]

Thought's and comments welcome on this subject do you think this is the steps to full control over people and there spending?..

This sums it up:

As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out truly anonymous payments.

Never before has AML been a consideration at the currency level. At the third party banking and money transmission level, sure, but now their plan is for every pound you own to your name to be clocked in the system and traced.

They think we're so stupid that all we care about is whether our local supermarket or Amazon is tracking our data.

The way I see things, these CBDCs will take decades to become pervasive in society. Right now and for the next few years they are purely experimental. Even once they are cleared for widespread usage, there is no way they will completely replace traditional currency. Liberal countries will not discriminate against the elderly that way. Any plans to phase out physical cash, I think, will take place over decades.

The silver lining there: Fiat currencies may be collapsing (or already collapsed) by the time they try to mandate cashless payments.

I believe that the COVID-19 outbreak will be the catalyst for them to want to remove cash from our society's the argument will be that cash spreads disease.

Our smart phones, credit and debit cards have been shown to be extensively germ-ridden. Seems like a ridiculous argument to me but I'm sure people will fall for it.

I mean I hate to be pessimistic, but do you truly think that FIAT governments are going to go poof by the time that these are working? I've heard that China is literally rolling out some testing right now regarding their digital currency (https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-state-owned-bank-offers-test-interface-for-pboc-central-bank-digital-currency)

I'm not like many in the crypto community when I say that I don't think that world governments are going to let this happen so easily and without their intevention. I've always said, if world governments thought crypto was a real threat they'd shut down everything and physically attack miners, coders, etc.

But yes -- if countries are able to go to using digital currency, they're going to be able to TRACK EVERYTHING. Which is a major problem. People don't think it, but fiat currency cash is literally the best way to be off the grid with. Bitcoin really isn't. I love crypto and everything about it, but I think we believe that crypto is completely separate from fiat and traditional financial markets when it truly isn't and we all know that in the back of our heads.

Sidenote: Can we compare the Bank of Englands nice clean website with the federal reserves website? Kinda sad to see that the Federal Reserve (US) has such a horrible site that doesn't show anything clearly.

[exstasie]

This sums it up:

As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out truly anonymous payments.

Never before has AML been a consideration at the currency level. At the third party banking and money transmission level, sure, but now their plan is for every pound you own to your name to be clocked in the system and traced.

They think we're so stupid that all we care about is whether our local supermarket or Amazon is tracking our data.

The way I see things, these CBDCs will take decades to become pervasive in society. Right now and for the next few years they are purely experimental. Even once they are cleared for widespread usage, there is no way they will completely replace traditional currency. Liberal countries will not discriminate against the elderly that way. Any plans to phase out physical cash, I think, will take place over decades.

The silver lining there: Fiat currencies may be collapsing (or already collapsed) by the time they try to mandate cashless payments.

I mean I hate to be pessimistic, but do you truly think that FIAT governments are going to go poof by the time that these are working? I've heard that China is literally rolling out some testing right now regarding their digital currency (https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-state-owned-bank-offers-test-interface-for-pboc-central-bank-digital-currency)

Governments won't go poof of course. However I think a massive retooling of the global monetary system (the same magnitude of change as the Bretton Woods agreement) could happen in the next 2-3 decades in response to currency crises.

Even if they are in testing now, I'm betting the transition to entirely digital money (physical cash banned) will take decades too.

I'm not like many in the crypto community when I say that I don't think that world governments are going to let this happen so easily and without their intevention. I've always said, if world governments thought crypto was a real threat they'd shut down everything and physically attack miners, coders, etc.

BTC is not a threat to fiat currencies. The smarter governments know that. The main threats to fiat currencies are mounting debt and a free floating exchange system based entirely on faith.

Governments would of course reboot their currencies in the face of default. I think they would be pressed to peg their currencies to physical reserves (like gold and silver) or foreign currencies that are so pegged.

I think it is more likely BTC becomes a reserve asset underpinning currencies (like gold) than it is that governments would attack the Bitcoin network within their borders. Maybe both scenarios are unlikely, but there's really no point in attacking Bitcoin at all, especially unilaterally.

[omone1]

This is okay, a real economic and currency war is coming, let's see who loses and gain from this. The global financial equation may never be the same again. I don't know what will become of USD afterward should other powerful nations toll the same line.

[squatz1]

This sums it up:

As discussed above, CBDC would need to be compliant with AML regulations, which rules out truly anonymous payments.

Never before has AML been a consideration at the currency level. At the third party banking and money transmission level, sure, but now their plan is for every pound you own to your name to be clocked in the system and traced.

They think we're so stupid that all we care about is whether our local supermarket or Amazon is tracking our data.

The way I see things, these CBDCs will take decades to become pervasive in society. Right now and for the next few years they are purely experimental. Even once they are cleared for widespread usage, there is no way they will completely replace traditional currency. Liberal countries will not discriminate against the elderly that way. Any plans to phase out physical cash, I think, will take place over decades.

The silver lining there: Fiat currencies may be collapsing (or already collapsed) by the time they try to mandate cashless payments.

I mean I hate to be pessimistic, but do you truly think that FIAT governments are going to go poof by the time that these are working? I've heard that China is literally rolling out some testing right now regarding their digital currency (https://www.coindesk.com/chinese-state-owned-bank-offers-test-interface-for-pboc-central-bank-digital-currency)

Governments won't go poof of course. However I think a massive retooling of the global monetary system (the same magnitude of change as the Bretton Woods agreement) could happen in the next 2-3 decades in response to currency crises.

Even if they are in testing now, I'm betting the transition to entirely digital money (physical cash banned) will take decades too.

I'm not like many in the crypto community when I say that I don't think that world governments are going to let this happen so easily and without their intevention. I've always said, if world governments thought crypto was a real threat they'd shut down everything and physically attack miners, coders, etc.

BTC is not a threat to fiat currencies. The smarter governments know that. The main threats to fiat currencies are mounting debt and a free floating exchange system based entirely on faith.

Governments would of course reboot their currencies in the face of default. I think they would be pressed to peg their currencies to physical reserves (like gold and silver) or foreign currencies that are so pegged.

I think it is more likely BTC becomes a reserve asset underpinning currencies (like gold) than it is that governments would attack the Bitcoin network within their borders. Maybe both scenarios are unlikely, but there's really no point in attacking Bitcoin at all, especially unilaterally.

Do I think the montetary system will change? Yes.
Do I think that people will move further and further towards digital currency in the next couple decades? Yes. But I think this digital currency is most likely going to be government sponsored currencies. Unless Crypto changes a good amount to make it more attractive to people in the West.

I've spoken about this with multiple members of the forum and we've all said that bitcoin is cool for nerds like this, but for most people they don't see the need to use all this crazy stuff that isn't stable and is not really easy to use as an older regular person.

But when you're talking about debt -- I do truly think that debt is going to be an issue for countries as it is now. It is going to spiral out of control, and I'm unsure what the plan is when interest payments are set to exceed items such as the NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET FOR THE US. I don't think it's going to make countries default and go under -- because at that point we're most likely in some sort of war / civil war / uprising. But we'll see.

[abhiseshakana]

But when you're talking about debt -- I do truly think that debt is going to be an issue for countries as it is now. It is going to spiral out of control, and I'm unsure what the plan is when interest payments are set to exceed items such as the NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET FOR THE US. I don't think it's going to make countries default and go under -- because at that point we're most likely in some sort of war / civil war / uprising. But we'll see.

American hegemony has kept all the world alive in the grip of fear. his superiority in world war two and then the dollar in his right hand and the military power in his left made developing countries and poor countries die of death and compartmentalized and became an exploitation ground for the interests of countries and groups of world rulers.

Now that America has lost its dominance in trade and finance, America will maintain its currency and military dominance. There are about 700-800 United States military bases scattered outside American territory throughout the world. Can imagine how serious America is with its military, even now America has made a space army program.

China has begun to take off in the process of replacing physical money with digital yuan. China has long been prepared to be self-sufficient in energy and eliminate its dependence on energy supply from outside. Indeed China has never fought outside of Chinese territory, but yesterday there was a tension in the South China Sea when Chinese military ships entered Indonesian waters. China is now beginning to balance dollar hegemony with its Yuanisation even though it is still too early.