Central Bank Digital Currencies: a Threat or a Blessing?

[Kakmakr]

The threat from Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are not that it would be faster and cheaper than Bitcoin, but rather that it would get the full support of the governments. We currently have some freedom to use Bitcoin as a Commodity in many countries, because the governments allow it and commodities are regulated. What happens if the Banks collude with governments to ban Bitcoin and to support their fiat based token. 

Remember it is all about control and manipulation for governments and they already control the Banks and they manipulate fiat currency values via the Reserve Banks. Governments also hate cash, because it is difficult to track and trace fiat transactions with cash, so they will boost technologies that they can control and then give them a full transaction history of every token used... from the time that it was created/mined. 

[AjithBtc]

Digital currencies issued under a central authority doesn't get used to be a cryptocurrency. They are just digital currencies, which means traditional fiat were given a digital accessibility. When the central authority of every nation got its cryptocurrency its usage gets limited within the country. This way there is a need for a common asset that can be used everywhere. Maybe that will happen with the help of universal cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, ethereum.

[imstillthebest]

Digital currencies issued under a central authority doesn't get used to be a cryptocurrency. They are just digital currencies, which means traditional fiat were given a digital accessibility.

i look on the title again and i didnt see that he said crypto . cryptos are different from them but i dont know if they are a threat or not because there were already digital currencies before , before cryptos existed . we can say that cryptos copies an idea with them but not totally because cryptos has its own new feature .

When the central authority of every nation got its cryptocurrency its usage gets limited within the country. This way there is a need for a common asset that can be used everywhere. Maybe that will happen with the help of universal cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, ethereum.

 they maybe limited because they arent popular as a btc and eth  but if they were a crypto , any other country can use them . 

[deisik]

Central Bank currencies are nothing but a hilarious joke for cryptocurrencies, they are not cryptocurrencies!! With a non volatile nature and something backing them up , they might as well be fiat2.0

Things I can think of:

Pros:
-The government will be able to track the users
-Good option for traditional people who do not trust the cryptocurrencies and such
-Secure and hassle free transactions
-can stop Corruption
-won't charge excessive fee for transferring

I can't actually picture how the government being able to track their citizens is a pro (unless as in professional)

Maybe, it is a good thing for the government but definitely not for the simple folks. I don't think they will be happy about the Big Brother looking over their shoulder into every shekel they spend and every nickel they earn

Cons:
-Zero Privacy
-Same as fiat , only online
-Kills the whole concept of cryptocurrencies
-Would try and dominate the market by banning cryptocurrencies first
-Would be very volatile and stable which won't be good for short term trading much

I don't see either how CBDCs are killing the idea of cryptocurrencies. As explained in the article and further in the thread, CBDCs are not a new form money, it is the same good, or not so good, fiat but in a different package. And if fiat didn't kill crypto, there is no reason to think that CBDCs will. It could be argued that they can somewhat hurt cryptocurrencies but not in the sense of killing their entire concept. They don't offer anything fundamentally new

[mu_enrico]

Digital currencies issued under a central authority doesn't get used to be a cryptocurrency. They are just digital currencies, which means traditional fiat were given a digital accessibility.

Maybe you should replace the word "cryptocurrency" into "Bitcoin" since lots of cryptocurrencies out there were issued by the "central authority," including your beloved Ethereum
At the moment, perhaps every currency that uses cryptography can be put on CMC.

[Sanugarid]

It looks more like fiat with another name, just that...

lol digital currencies are actually fiat, they are pegged to every currency.

I see no advantage on central bank digital currencies.

Well I respect your opinion on this one but I think you need to look for other angles with this one, this isn't going to be on the table if this not brings any good or benefit.

One argument was that you could transact directly with the central bank this way, without the need of third party banks, but there are third party banks which don't charge any fee and their services are really good, so what would be the advantage to deal directly with central bank?

One I can think of is that central bank is more secured to transact with, they don't need to pass your request, documents or anything you need them to do for you unlike third party banks they still need to pass it to the central bank. Talking about the fees, I doubt there is no third party bank that does not charge any fees, banks is a business after all. Centralized banking is what we need if we want to transition into a digital one, is this a threat or a blessing? We cannot determine it yet as early as now, perhaps we are able to experience it.

And congratulations to you for this article, very well wroten! Success!

*written* just correcting your little mistake here mate 

[deisik]

The threat from Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are not that it would be faster and cheaper than Bitcoin, but rather that it would get the full support of the governments. We currently have some freedom to use Bitcoin as a Commodity in many countries, because the governments allow it and commodities are regulated. What happens if the Banks collude with governments to ban Bitcoin and to support their fiat based token

If they could, they would have done so long ago

Besides, I've heard it a few times that CBDCs would not so much hurt Bitcoin and its brethren but regular banks and financial institutions. The tech that exists today can potentially make many banking jobs redundant. Starting from this reasoning, it can be concluded that bankers should collude or lobby against CBDCs, not cryptocurrencies. Crypto is still a tiny speck in the global financial space, not worth the effort of obliterating it

[Shasha80]

Every thing in the world has positive and negative effects, including the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) has positive
and negative effects. For me CBDC can be a threat because it can dominance digital transactions, many people will be more
trusting and comfortable using CBDC rather than using cryptocurrency. Especially for lay people, moreover CBDC has full support
from the government, so it can indeed slow the growth of cryptocurrency.

[d5000]

I agree with most of the article, but also with what @mu_enrico wrote. I would "rate" Bitcoin's borderless nature, as an advantage with respect to CBDCs, even higher than its ability to work as a "digital gold" with limited supply.

Of course this depends on the requirements CBDC issuers establish to access the currency. I don't think you'll have to be a citizen of the issuing country to be able to use that system, but a pretty hard KYC process (for example, including your tax number if you're a citizen) is very likely. Perhaps a method for guests (e.g. tourists) would also be established, but I can't imagine a system as open open as Bitcoin. So people which wouldn't like to expose their privacy too much, would not see in CBDCs the tool of their choice.

Perhaps some offshore countries could try to boost the popularity of their CBDC with a pretty open system with lax KYC. But anyway, really privacy-aware persons would not use that.

Even if the supply model of a blockchain-based project like Ethereum can be changed, what about a centralized currency run by a single entity, that is to say, a central bank? So no matter what kind of Bretton Woods they suggest or come up with again, without something that would actually stop them in their pursuit to work around the hard cap or peg they set forth in an agreement, this agreement won't be worth the paper it's written on

Well, if they were serious about such a hard supply cap, they could include it into the Constitution, if they find the political majorities for that. A change of this rule would be possible, but very difficult. However I don't see that occurring at least for the short to medium term because monetary policy is still renowned enough in most political and economic ideologies.

[KnightElite]

The threat from Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are not that it would be faster and cheaper than Bitcoin, but rather that it would get the full support of the governments. We currently have some freedom to use Bitcoin as a Commodity in many countries, because the governments allow it and commodities are regulated. What happens if the Banks collude with governments to ban Bitcoin and to support their fiat based token. 

Remember it is all about control and manipulation for governments and they already control the Banks and they manipulate fiat currency values via the Reserve Banks. Governments also hate cash, because it is difficult to track and trace fiat transactions with cash, so they will boost technologies that they can control and then give them a full transaction history of every token used... from the time that it was created/mined. 

Before, the Central bank digital currencies see the cryptocurrencies as threat but their perspective is now different. Because they know that the cash may lose its value whenever people start patronizing and adopting cryptocurrencies. They are now aware on the technology that the cryptocurrency can bring, right now we experience poor transaction and payment system and for sure Banks will not collude with government to ban it but maybe the banks will be the reason to see that the mass adoption will happen,

[bits4books]

As for me, there is really too much noise around the CBDC. Those who say that this is a weapon to destroy a decentralized crypto understand that they assume the destruction of air with the help of oxygen?
I do not see anything wrong with CBDC as such - even if you can then buy the same btc through IT. Just someone in gov who understood the principle of "divide and rule" and decided to try to join the movement from the positive side.

[deisik]

Even if the supply model of a blockchain-based project like Ethereum can be changed, what about a centralized currency run by a single entity, that is to say, a central bank? So no matter what kind of Bretton Woods they suggest or come up with again, without something that would actually stop them in their pursuit to work around the hard cap or peg they set forth in an agreement, this agreement won't be worth the paper it's written on

Well, if they were serious about such a hard supply cap, they could include it into the Constitution, if they find the political majorities for that. A change of this rule would be possible, but very difficult. However I don't see that occurring at least for the short to medium term because monetary policy is still renowned enough in most political and economic ideologies

They could just peg it to gold or whatever, and get done with that

Indeed, they would most certainly discard this peg eventually (as it happened after Bretton Woods with the US dollar redeemable for gold), but they could just as easily ignore what is written in their constitution. Not even speaking of countries like Russia where the constitution has lost all of its meaning as the legal basis of a nation. And economically, hard-capping fiat doesn't make a lot of sense. It is not the lack of a cap vigorously followed through that turns fiat into a weapon of mass impoverishment, but its misuse by central bankers

[exstasie]

But you're right, that infinite supply is a problem, but that's also not necessarily fixed by blockchain anyway...

Bitcoin did it, right?

Tongue in cheek, of course. It doesn't really matter what the protocol rules are if the central bank is the only one running validators.

Yeah, Bitcoin did! =) And that's a step central banks could follow. You're right of course, it doesn't matter but if the bank would choose to publicise this blockchain (view only access perhaps) it could help increase public confidence, and general transparency/accountability overall. Sure, they can still choose to change that but change would be noticed and they'd have to explain.

I suppose that's true, but based on the current state of affairs it shouldn't matter. Nobody seems to mind that the Fed printed $2-3 trillion out of thin air over the past few months.

If the money supply increase were published on a blockchain, I can't imagine it would make any difference. "We're trying to prevent a depression" would probably suffice as a good enough rationale in either case.

[buwaytress]

I suppose that's true, but based on the current state of affairs it shouldn't matter. Nobody seems to mind that the Fed printed $2-3 trillion out of thin air over the past few months.

If the money supply increase were published on a blockchain, I can't imagine it would make any difference. "We're trying to prevent a depression" would probably suffice as a good enough rationale in either case.

Perhaps youré right and nobody cares, but perhaps also once people have a route into looking at things a bit more transparently, like the Bank of England looks like it might (and HM Treasury already do field public questions for example on budget and spending). Many governments are trying out open concepts like public call for comments on proposals and budgets, monetary issuance could very well be the next step -- inspired by a blockchain style ledger.

I know people are dumb in the end, but sometimes, give them the opportunity and tools to demand for accountability and it could change thinking. And at least help them determine if the excuses use to print more money can be validated.

Believe me you, I'm not saying the fiat structure will ever be good, but one step of improvement is better than nothing!

[rodskee]

Central bank digital currencies are really not an improvement in my perspective. They are merely digital and will not at all be decentralized.

There's a central access where potential control can be influenced by
people who have higher authorities.

They won't even be anonymous or even pseudo-anonymous. On the contrary I think government will try to make them more transparent and visible.

But the fact that there's still lapses that can take place when there's a
central authorities still possible.

Moreover the real reason why people have problem with traditional currencies is the artificial creation of money which would still remain the problem in CBDC. So yes CBDC would come but no they won't be anything magical.

Indeed, the very reason why people are trying to find something that can
cater this and can enhance the system.

Moreover I don't know why some experts say that bitcoin could flourish after that I on the contrary feel that governments would first place restrictions on bitcoin before they make their own currency.

The government should be responsible with how they will handle this situation,
with them in the positive side
the chance that it will build a better relationship between  crypto users and
it's govern rulings.

[deisik]

If the money supply increase were published on a blockchain, I can't imagine it would make any difference. "We're trying to prevent a depression" would probably suffice as a good enough rationale in either case

And since monetary aggregates still get published on the Web, it doesn't change much. On the other hand, we only see the stats, not the process itself as it develops and unfolds in real time, i.e. after the damage has already been mostly done, and we are left to face the smoking ruins, so to speak. In this manner, seeing with your own eyes how the central bank starts to pump money into the economy, and steals your purchasing power from you would be tremendously interesting and probably disturbing (unless you hold bitcoins, of course)

That's why it is never gonna happen in real life

[suzanne5223]

I think the digital currency are just what we are already use to maybe in another form.

The central bank digital currency will definitely be another form of what we have already use.

The central banks are just realizing the benefit of being liberal to accommodate the global challenge and changes in global practices.

They understand the benefits of liberal mate they are just been selfish and want what is best for themselves. Mind you, each and everyone of them is either a mother or father and theres no way they will combat the challenge in their family without the existence of liberal.

Therefore, issuing of digital currency are more of an improvement to the world in general.

Lets just hope that every governments love the idea though because none them appears to work on it anymore.




follow-up post, many people seem to erroneously assume that CBDCs are going to be blockchain-based. Although we don't know that for certain as no central bank digital currency has been launched yet (with China presumably now testing the digital permutation of its currency), there is little doubt that these currencies will be heavily centralized (read, no blockchain will be used). As a result, it is not so much about introducing a new currency in its own right but about developing a new payment system for the existing one

And China is also looking to become a major regional player

[hulla]

As a follow-up post, many people seem to erroneously assume that CBDCs are going to be blockchain-based. Although we don't know that for certain as no central bank digital currency has been launched yet (with China presumably now testing the digital permutation of its currency)

Every governments in the world appreciate blockchain and from my own understanding theres no way the CBDC will survive without the use of blockchain.

there is little doubt that these currencies will be heavily centralized (read, no blockchain will be used). As a result, it is not so much about introducing a new currency in its own right but about developing a new payment system for the existing one

I dont doubt that CBDC will be centralized and the issue of the CBDC is to integrate another payment system which maybe a solution to cost of cash transfer and global trading.

And China is also looking to become a major regional player

They are the only country which make indepth research about digital currency after the advise giving to central banks/governments by the IMF boss but they could also mislead other countries with their centralism nature.

[suvo05]

The are researching for a longer period of time but still there are no Central Bank Digital Currencies in the market. I think the are facing some issue over it. They will only adopt the digital currencies if it proves to be more beneficial than the fiat, for them. The system will be obviously centralized with  gov having more control, and if gov can successfully digitize the whole system then they will able to track every penny.

[dothebeats]

CBDCs will surely become a thing, and to what form they would take and whether or not they utilize the blockchain or use other tech is still speculations up to now. The only thing that this does to bitcoin is prove that digital currencies are viable for widespread use and that's it. People would still use bitcoin, or at least hoard them in the future for profit if CBDCs are introduced and nothing will be changed in terms of the market. There would always be a line dividing cryptocurrencies from state-issued currencies, and we know that people know that too well and also know the difference. For now, no one should worry about that since CBDCs becoming a thing isn't a threat to bitcoin or to crypto as a whole.