Good news: ECB delays CBDC launch to 2029

[o48o]

Nah. They just need more time to plan how to roll out their CBDC to the public. A quick launch would be met with much skepticism. After all, people aren't going to be comfortable with a digital currency where the government can track all of their activities. At least, not in the very beginning. The process of launching the "Digital Euro" should be a slow and steady one. Careful testing of the core tech powering the CBDC should be done prior to rolling it out to the public. Otherwise, unwanted security vulnerabilities and/or flaws will arise.

Considering that the EU is "anti-crypto", a CBDC would be the perfect way to empower the corrupt Fiat money system. All in bid to declare crypto usage "illegal" within the bloc. We'll see what happens in the long run.

Obviously it would come with skeptism. Benefits for ordinary people need to be significant in order it to be accepted.
Speaking of governments tracking your activities, EU actually has GDPR unlike rest of the world, so i am not sure if privacy would be tracked more then now. It might as well have zero knowledge proofs to cover the privacy in the end.

And how is EU "anti-crypto"? Take USDT not being allowed for example, it was about lack of transparency.

If you are referring to privacy coins being banned, that most likely will happen with every country that's in FATF.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Speaking of governments tracking your activities, EU actually has GDPR unlike rest of the world, so i am not sure if privacy would be tracked more then now. It might as well have zero knowledge proofs to cover the privacy in the end.

The EU approved the GDPR shortly before embarking on its totalitarian shift. But like many of the things it does, it's largely nonsense. Let me give you an example. I recently heard about a case of sexual assault in the US from a YouTube video, and when I searched for it, I found a news article from the US. I clicked on it and was denied access because data on sex offenders in the EU is essentially private. There is no public sex offender registry as there is in Anglo-Saxon countries. The EU prioritises the right to privacy of sex offenders over the right to safety of its citizens, who have no right to know if their neighbour has a history of sexual assault.

Then there are things that are not so scandalous, but every time you visit a website, you get a pop-up asking you to accept cookies or not, which 99.99% of people accept, because those concerned about privacy do not need a regulatory behemoth forcing companies to display that message (which theymos completely ignores, by the way, well done) since they use Tor or regularly clear their cookies or do whatever else they can to protect their privacy, ignoring the EU's nonsense.

So, given this, the fact that the EU wants to embark on a project such as CBDCs, which not only attacks privacy but also represents a project of economic totalitarianism, is perfectly compatible with the GDPR, and if there are parts that are not compatible, they will simply modify the GDPR to adapt it to the totalitarian project of CBDCs.

[o48o]

The EU approved the GDPR shortly before embarking on its totalitarian shift. But like many of the things it does, it's largely nonsense. Let me give you an example. I recently heard about a case of sexual assault in the US from a YouTube video, and when I searched for it, I found a news article from the US. I clicked on it and was denied access because data on sex offenders in the EU is essentially private. There is no public sex offender registry as there is in Anglo-Saxon countries. The EU prioritises the right to privacy of sex offenders over the right to safety of its citizens, who have no right to know if their neighbour has a history of sexual assault.

Then there are things that are not so scandalous, but every time you visit a website, you get a pop-up asking you to accept cookies or not, which 99.99% of people accept, because those concerned about privacy do not need a regulatory behemoth forcing companies to display that message (which theymos completely ignores, by the way, well done) since they use Tor or regularly clear their cookies or do whatever else they can to protect their privacy, ignoring the EU's nonsense.

So, given this, the fact that the EU wants to embark on a project such as CBDCs, which not only attacks privacy but also represents a project of economic totalitarianism, is perfectly compatible with the GDPR, and if there are parts that are not compatible, they will simply modify the GDPR to adapt it to the totalitarian project of CBDCs.

Worried about data protection law protecting everyone? Seems like dystopian viewpoint, as you could then add any group you wouldn't like to that non-protected sector. Also i find it funny when these "examples" are always some personal incident or something you saw online.

You don't have a clue if CBDCs will be build on ZK tech or not, so you don't know if it's an attack to privacy or not. That would actually comply with lot of regulations. And wtf is that "totalitarian shift"? Look at the rest of the world and say it again.

[juttsab@]

Nah. They just need more time to plan how to roll out their CBDC to the public. A quick launch would be met with much skepticism. After all, people aren't going to be comfortable with a digital currency where the government can track all of their activities. At least, not in the very beginning. The process of launching the "Digital Euro" should be a slow and steady one. Careful testing of the core tech powering the CBDC should be done prior to rolling it out to the public. Otherwise, unwanted security vulnerabilities and/or flaws will arise.

Considering that the EU is "anti-crypto", a CBDC would be the perfect way to empower the corrupt Fiat money system. All in bid to declare crypto usage "illegal" within the bloc. We'll see what happens in the long run.

Obviously it would come with skeptism. Benefits for ordinary people need to be significant in order it to be accepted.
Speaking of governments tracking your activities, EU actually has GDPR unlike rest of the world, so i am not sure if privacy would be tracked more then now. It might as well have zero knowledge proofs to cover the privacy in the end.

And how is EU "anti-crypto"? Take USDT not being allowed for example, it was about lack of transparency.

If you are referring to privacy coins being banned, that most likely will happen with every country that's in FATF.

I think digital currency will be helpful for the country because many countries are united with the Europe and they are using the Euro and they want a big change of security of money because in the provite banks their money is not safe And that is the reason they choosed to invest in cryptocurrency as in cryptocurrency your money control is in your hand and any third party can't do anything with your money. They delayed the time which is not good for the economy of the Europe because now is modern age and people are working for the money and their money is not safe and they are wasting their time to earn more and more money. Their money worth is going down and banks are using money for their purpose .Central Bank has to take step as early as possible.

[STT]

ECB is a bank that will fail, that is the news to wait for as it mean all alternatives will go up comparatively.   They are confused and not a reserve of stability but unstability, bail outs and speculative hopes on future taxes possible to justify their anti capitalist policy failures.
  It should be impossible for the ECB to fail with Germany and other strong exporters behind them but I cannot believe those nations of people not politics or paper thin policy will support constant bad debt and poor decisions made by finance representatives. Its not bankers who pay but people and they will end the ECB when they realize its lost so much of their wealth for them.   ECB cannot ever step back from a crypto standard like Satoshi did, they will interfere forever and obstruct and destroy any useful role it might have, theres no positive to wait for while they continue.

[Abiky]

Obviously it would come with skeptism. Benefits for ordinary people need to be significant in order it to be accepted.
Speaking of governments tracking your activities, EU actually has GDPR unlike rest of the world, so i am not sure if privacy would be tracked more then now. It might as well have zero knowledge proofs to cover the privacy in the end.

And how is EU "anti-crypto"? Take USDT not being allowed for example, it was about lack of transparency.

If you are referring to privacy coins being banned, that most likely will happen with every country that's in FATF.

I understand the EU has GDPR laws, but if they care so much about privacy, why are they so eager to release a CBDC? It could've decided to follow the US' footsteps by backing down on its plans to launch its very own digital currency. The EU is anti-crypto, particularly with its strict laws/regulations and constant criticism/bashing of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. ECB's President Christine Lagarde has been an avid critic of Bitcoin for a while now. To make matters worse, the EU will now require wallets and exchanges (both custodial and non-custodial) to enforce KYC verification on all crypto users. So even decentralized exchanges and non-custodial wallets would need to provide a way for the government to verify crypto users. CEXs would be prohibited from providing anonymous accounts to their customers, too.

In the US, things are more flexible. At least, for now. Either way, Bitcoin and similar coins have a higher chance of survival than privacy coins. These last ones will be rejected by most countries worldwide. We'll see what happens in the long run.

[abhiseshakana]

The EU approved the GDPR shortly before embarking on its totalitarian shift. But like many of the things it does, it's largely nonsense. Let me give you an example. I recently heard about a case of sexual assault in the US from a YouTube video, and when I searched for it, I found a news article from the US. I clicked on it and was denied access because data on sex offenders in the EU is essentially private. There is no public sex offender registry as there is in Anglo-Saxon countries. The EU prioritises the right to privacy of sex offenders over the right to safety of its citizens, who have no right to know if their neighbour has a history of sexual assault.

Then there are things that are not so scandalous, but every time you visit a website, you get a pop-up asking you to accept cookies or not, which 99.99% of people accept, because those concerned about privacy do not need a regulatory behemoth forcing companies to display that message (which theymos completely ignores, by the way, well done) since they use Tor or regularly clear their cookies or do whatever else they can to protect their privacy, ignoring the EU's nonsense.

So, given this, the fact that the EU wants to embark on a project such as CBDCs, which not only attacks privacy but also represents a project of economic totalitarianism, is perfectly compatible with the GDPR, and if there are parts that are not compatible, they will simply modify the GDPR to adapt it to the totalitarian project of CBDCs.

I think the GDPR is more accurately described as a bureaucratic protectionist project, not a totalitarian one. While it often produces absurd side effects like useless cookie pop-ups, restricted access to certain sites, and an overprotective attitude towards personal data, the goal isn't total control, but rather protecting citizens from digital exploitation by Big Tech. You can imagine the EU's concern, realizing that they don't have Big Tech like the US or China, so the GDPR is their way of creating a protective fence to maintain data sovereignty. It's very different from China's centralized political control. The issues of sexual privacy and cookie banners are the result of hyperprotectionist regulatory chaos, not an ideology of control.

I agree with you that if there are conflicting regulations (such as the GDPR), the EU can and will certainly change them, because monetary rules always supersede privacy rules. CBDCs, as instruments of fiscal and monetary power (gateways to programmable money), are more akin to economic control mechanisms than privacy policies. CBDS can track real-time transactions, implement granular monetary policies (expired money, conditional money), potentially limit spending, and transfer stimulus directly from the government to citizens.

Despite being pro-privacy, I believe the EU is interested in CBDCs because they can serve as a tool for economic sovereignty, especially in a country lacking technological dominance, losing out to US Big Tech, Chinese Big Platforms, and global stablecoins like USDT/USDC. CBDCs provide the EU with an opportunity to regain monetary control in the digital age. They provide fiscal leverage not possible with physical money, such as automatic taxation, a quick freeze on economic crime, direct subsidy distribution, and capital flight monitoring. It's more about economic power in the digital age, not a totalitarian versus non-totalitarian situation.

Worried about data protection law protecting everyone? Seems like dystopian viewpoint, as you could then add any group you wouldn't like to that non-protected sector. Also i find it funny when these "examples" are always some personal incident or something you saw online.

You don't have a clue if CBDCs will be build on ZK tech or not, so you don't know if it's an attack to privacy or not. That would actually comply with lot of regulations. And wtf is that "totalitarian shift"? Look at the rest of the world and say it again.

In theory, a CBDC could use ZK technology, but politically, it's nearly impossible. It's valid at the technological level, but naive at the public policy level. In reality, ZK-CBDC = high privacy = inconsistent with the goals of government CBDCs, which are structurally at odds with zero-knowledge privacy, such as more effective AML/KYC, transaction transparency, faster monetary intervention capabilities, and the potential for programmable money. If the ECB wanted privacy, it wouldn't increase surveillance of the payment system. The trend in public discussions about a digital euro emphasizes traceability for AML compliance, transaction-level integrity, and the possibility of setting holding limits.

https://www.deloittelegal.de/dl/en/services/legal/perspectives/eu-aml-paket-wendepunkt-geldwaeschepraevention.html

The meaning of totalitarian shift doesn't mean the EU is becoming North Korea, but rather an institutional shift toward greater top-down control. If the entire payment system, from cash to stablecoins, were all directed toward a centralized model, that would be architectural totalitarianism, not a classic dictatorship. It's true that many other countries are worse off. But "others are worse" is not a justification for expanding state power over citizens' transactions.

The concern about GDPR and CBDCs is not about "online examples," but rather about the direction of EU policy, which is increasingly increasing state control over the digital economy.

I understand the EU has GDPR laws, but if they care so much about privacy, why are they so eager to release a CBDC? It could've decided to follow the US' footsteps by backing down on its plans to launch its very own digital currency. The EU is anti-crypto, particularly with its strict laws/regulations and constant criticism/bashing of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. ECB's President Christine Lagarde has been an avid critic of Bitcoin for a while now. To make matters worse, the EU will now require wallets and exchanges (both custodial and non-custodial) to enforce KYC verification on all crypto users. So even decentralized exchanges and non-custodial wallets would need to provide a way for the government to verify crypto users. CEXs would be prohibited from providing anonymous accounts to their customers, too.

In the US, things are more flexible. At least, for now. Either way, Bitcoin and similar coins have a higher chance of survival than privacy coins. These last ones will be rejected by most countries worldwide. We'll see what happens in the long run.

Why not like the US?
Because the EU's geopolitical structure is different from the US's. The US can tolerate Bitcoin because it has a dollar with a deep and innovative capital market. Meanwhile, the euro is not as resilient as the dollar, and EU banks are more fragile, with governments relying on a highly centralized tax system. The euro lacks geopolitical support, so the ECB views Bitcoin as a systemic risk and a CBDC as a solution to strengthen the euro.

Why is the EU so anti-crypto?
I believe crypto undermines the three things the EU values most: banking control, restrictions on capital movement, and the stability of the euro. Bitcoin's invulnerability, unblockability, non-capital control, and independence from the ECB provide the EU with an excuse to attack privacy coins, push for extreme KYC requirements, even for self-custody wallets, force DEXs to find KYC solutions, and speak negatively about Bitcoin every year. It's clear that the EU's view isn't about consumer safety, but rather that crypto erodes monetary sovereignty.

As a highly bureaucratic and highly regulatory bloc, a CBDC is a dream for any EU-type government (a new monetary policy tool, a direct fiscal tool, and a tool for economic oversight). CBDCs give the state powers that traditional banking doesn't have.

The tension between the pro-privacy GDPR and the potentially anti-privacy CBDC is not a paradox. They are simply two sides of the same project that strengthens European regulatory sovereignty in an increasingly digital world.

[o48o]

-cut-
You don't have a clue if CBDCs will be build on ZK tech or not, so you don't know if it's an attack to privacy or not. That would actually comply with lot of regulations.
-cut-

In theory, a CBDC could use ZK technology, but politically, it's nearly impossible. It's valid at the technological level, but naive at the public policy level. In reality, ZK-CBDC = high privacy = inconsistent with the goals of government CBDCs, which are structurally at odds with zero-knowledge privacy, such as more effective AML/KYC, transaction transparency, faster monetary intervention capabilities, and the potential for programmable money. If the ECB wanted privacy, it wouldn't increase surveillance of the payment system. The trend in public discussions about a digital euro emphasizes traceability for AML compliance, transaction-level integrity, and the possibility of setting holding limits.
-cut-

I'll reply to this, even though your wording sounds indistinguishable from chatgpt answer, including some mistakes it tends to make.

Now i am not sure if you are aware how ZK works, but if i had to guess, with privacy you are referring to coins like monero. And i am not talking about privacy that's made to evade regulations.

In reality there's no incompatibly with AML laws, or "goals" of EU, because privacy-preserving smart contracts can be used as proof needed for the regulatory compliance without revealing the documents. That's the whole point.

What it comes to "greater top-down control" explanation, give me example of a region with representative democracy, where that bottom of the pyramid is more in control. And i would need some proof with that.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Congratulations, you have broken the record for demagoguery in a couple of short paragraphs.

Worried about data protection law protecting everyone?

If you did not have the comprehension skills of an amoeba, you would see that what concerns me is that the rights of criminals are preserved above those of honest people.

Also i find it funny when these "examples" are always some personal incident or something you saw online.

I find rather funny that you defend paedophiles and rapists, surely what you want is for the GDPR to protect you.

You don't have a clue if CBDCs will be build on ZK tech or not, so you don't know if it's an attack to privacy or not.

Until now, I had taken you seriously.

And wtf is that "totalitarian shift"? Look at the rest of the world and say it again.

It is normal for an amoeba not to understand the meaning of ‘shift’ in the phrase ‘totalitarian shift’.

[Smartprofit]

Obviously it would come with skeptism. Benefits for ordinary people need to be significant in order it to be accepted.
Speaking of governments tracking your activities, EU actually has GDPR unlike rest of the world, so i am not sure if privacy would be tracked more then now. It might as well have zero knowledge proofs to cover the privacy in the end.

And how is EU "anti-crypto"? Take USDT not being allowed for example, it was about lack of transparency.

If you are referring to privacy coins being banned, that most likely will happen with every country that's in FATF.

I understand the EU has GDPR laws, but if they care so much about privacy, why are they so eager to release a CBDC? It could've decided to follow the US' footsteps by backing down on its plans to launch its very own digital currency. The EU is anti-crypto, particularly with its strict laws/regulations and constant criticism/bashing of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. ECB's President Christine Lagarde has been an avid critic of Bitcoin for a while now. To make matters worse, the EU will now require wallets and exchanges (both custodial and non-custodial) to enforce KYC verification on all crypto users. So even decentralized exchanges and non-custodial wallets would need to provide a way for the government to verify crypto users. CEXs would be prohibited from providing anonymous accounts to their customers, too.

In the US, things are more flexible. At least, for now. Either way, Bitcoin and similar coins have a higher chance of survival than privacy coins. These last ones will be rejected by most countries worldwide. We'll see what happens in the long run.

I wouldn't categorically claim that Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies have a better chance of survival than anonymous and privacy coins. Everything will depend on whether the authorities can force the population to use CBDCs. 🦹

If they succeed, they will sooner or later destroy Bitcoin and similar decentralized cryptocurrencies. This can be achieved not only through direct legislative bans. They could, for example, provoke conflict within the community, a hard fork, or a transition to a new consensus algorithm (from PoW to PoS). The latter could be justified, for example, by environmental concerns.

Under these circumstances, anonymous and privacy coins like Monero have a better chance of survival than Bitcoin, simply because these coins are designed from the ground up to resist censorship.

As for the implementation of CBDCs, it is being delayed, perhaps because financiers are preparing for the collapse of the modern financial system. In other words, they are preparing for a financial catastrophe.  Indeed, it makes more sense to implement a CBDC after a financial catastrophe has already occurred (as a way to save the population from poverty and ruin), rather than before.💁 Marketing rules.

[nikola22]

As for the implementation of CBDCs, it is being delayed, perhaps because financiers are preparing for the collapse of the modern financial system. In other words, they are preparing for a financial catastrophe.  Indeed, it makes more sense to implement a CBDC after a financial catastrophe has already occurred (as a way to save the population from poverty and ruin), rather than before.💁 Marketing rules.

what's the point of bringing the modern financial system to collapse? it is primarily based on trust in certain currencies. if US dollar or euro collapses there will be no trust in CBDCs. people will return to gold-backed assets or new ones will emerge backed by Bitcoin.

even now many people don't have trust to CBDCs because they are completely controlled by government. and no matter what they say about CBDC privacy there's no credibility to those claims.

[DrBeer]

Good news for residents of the Eurozone, but also for everyone else. The ECB had accelerated its headlong rush and intended to launch the digital euro this October.

Now the news has come out that they are postponing the launch until 2029, although they are not selling it that way; it seems they want us to forget what they said in March (about launching in October).

Eurosystem moving to next phase of digital euro project

But those of us who have been paying attention to the issue are not fooled. This is a huge delay that looks more like capitulation.

The long-awaited digital euro — the European Central Bank’s central bank digital currency (CBDC) project — is facing another delay, with its launch now projected for mid-2029.

I think they have chosen a four-year delay because they want to see if the government in the US changes. A CBDC that can only be used within the EU makes no sense.

I'll start with what is most important to me about CBDC—it is the most frightening form of money we can imagine! And the most unpleasant thing is that this monster was created by the crypto world, which gave the world blockchain technology and smart contracts!

Secondly, the delayed launch is certainly positive, but only temporarily. It's like a doctor's diagnosis: “Well, you definitely won't get this terrible disease in the next two years, but in two years' time, you'll definitely come back to me with it.”

[abhiseshakana]

I'll reply to this, even though your wording sounds indistinguishable from chatgpt answer, including some mistakes it tends to make.

Now i am not sure if you are aware how ZK works, but if i had to guess, with privacy you are referring to coins like monero. And i am not talking about privacy that's made to evade regulations.

In reality there's no incompatibly with AML laws, or "goals" of EU, because privacy-preserving smart contracts can be used as proof needed for the regulatory compliance without revealing the documents. That's the whole point.

What it comes to "greater top-down control" explanation, give me example of a region with representative democracy, where that bottom of the pyramid is more in control. And i would need some proof with that.

The key to understanding is the EU's incentives. I'm not talking about ZK as a technical possibility, I'm talking about the incentive structure. ECB has no track record of supporting the implementation of full privacy in the financial system. The ECB is an institution whose primary goals are monetary stability, anti money laundering, and visibility of economic movements, not maximizing user privacy. ZK-CBDC privacy preservation isn't a matter of incompetent technology, but it doesn't accommodate the ECB's interests. The EU does care about privacy, but that doesn't mean it will create a private CBDC.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1624/oj/eng

CBDCs shift the economic power structure from bottom-up to top-down, further than traditional banking systems. I'm not saying there are perfect bottom-up democracies. This is clearly by design. With cash, users have freedom and privacy in transactions, while with conventional banks, there is multi-level oversight. In my country, account statements are often used as evidence in criminal investigations. Using a CBDC, a single liquidity provider (the central bank), with the technical capabilities for programmatic money restrictions, real-time tracking, automatic blocking, expiry date setting, sector restrictions, and granular stimulus control, you should be asking whether a CBDC increases or decreases top-down power ?

https://decrypt.co/318577/eu-to-track-crypto-transfers-under-new-aml-rules-eurogroup-president
https://cointelegraph.com/news/eu-crypto-ban-anonymous-privacy-tokens-2027

ZK/shielding/transaction sealing is clearly rejected by EU regulations if it allows for total anonymity (sender/receiver/amount hiding). AMLR/EU regulations emphasize the need for audit trails and identity verification, as opposed to complete anonymity. In practice, privacy-preserving coins are considered a high AML risk, so to remain legal in the EU ecosystem, projects must modify their protocols to allow for identification and transparency, or be removed from regular platforms. The key is that regulation demands transparency as a priority, not technical anonymity.

The latest regulation has declared that total anonymity models and privacy coins will be excluded from the EU legal ecosystem. So, in reality, there is a contradiction between the privacy + regulation narrative and the regulatory reality. The EU does not allow for absolute anonymity in its financial ecosystem.
Therefore, concerns that the EU CBDC/crypto framework will turn into a totalitarian system are not baseless paranoia, as the foundation of the regulation is, in fact, for control and transparency, not anonymity.

https://www.blockchain4europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/BC4EU-position-paper-on-AML-Regulation-May-2023.pdf
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/circle-eu-policy-chief-patrick-115226466.html
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/762387/EPRS_BRI%282024%29762387_EN.pdf

[Smartprofit]

As for the implementation of CBDCs, it is being delayed, perhaps because financiers are preparing for the collapse of the modern financial system. In other words, they are preparing for a financial catastrophe.  Indeed, it makes more sense to implement a CBDC after a financial catastrophe has already occurred (as a way to save the population from poverty and ruin), rather than before.💁 Marketing rules.

what's the point of bringing the modern financial system to collapse? it is primarily based on trust in certain currencies. if US dollar or euro collapses there will be no trust in CBDCs. people will return to gold-backed assets or new ones will emerge backed by Bitcoin.

even now many people don't have trust to CBDCs because they are completely controlled by government. and no matter what they say about CBDC privacy there's no credibility to those claims.

The modern financial system isn't based on trust in the US dollar. It's based on trust in the legal concept of property rights. When people "own" stocks, they believe they own part of a commercial entity. When people "own" the US dollar, they believe they own money... In fact, this is completely untrue. It's a fiction. 🤷

Regular people don't own anything. Ownership implies control over an asset. Regular people have no control whatsoever. They simply trust certain financial institutions (like commercial banks).

In the case of the US dollar, they trust a financial institution /Federal Reserve System/.In the case of securities, they trust a depository. In the case of Bitcoin, they trust financial institutions like ETFs and Coinbase (where "their" coins are stored), and so on. There are also insurance companies, which people also trust (in vain), and so on.  During a serious economic crisis (the very one we're talking about), all these financial institutions will disappear (they'll simply vanish into thin air). And people will be told they've lost everything and own nothing anymore.

And then they'll be "rescued." They'll be compensated for all their losses, but this compensation will be in the form of a new asset (CBDC).

[PokerDiceMan]

If the digital euro currency is only valid in the European region and not global, it will not have a significant impact on the cryptocurrency world. This is because its use is limited to the European region and it will be difficult to enter the global exchange market. Except for local exchange markets whose owners reside and live in Europe or whose companies are domiciled in Europe, only then will there be an impact on crypto, but that too will be limited to the European region and will not spread to Binance. Perhaps Binance for P2P and the euro market might use the digital euro as well, but the market will be limited to European users only.

[o48o]

Don Pedro Dinero: Maybe answer with substance, rather then strawmen. Notice how abhiseshakana's mature answer differs from yours.

The key to understanding is the EU's incentives. I'm not talking about ZK as a technical possibility, I'm talking about the incentive structure.
-cut-

I am not sure where you are going with this one. Are you saying there are less profits for EU in ZK-CBDC, or for whom? Compared to what CBDC exactly?

Any kind of CBDC would cut the middle man anyway, so it would change the structure. So what's the difference here with ZK tech? And incentives from securing the chain could be even outsourced to participating governments directly. So there's definitely money to be made from CBDCs for groups that secure the network.

ECB has no track record of supporting the implementation of full privacy in the financial system. The ECB is an institution whose primary goals are monetary stability, anti money laundering, and visibility of economic movements, not maximizing user privacy. ZK-CBDC privacy preservation isn't a matter of incompetent technology, but it doesn't accommodate the ECB's interests. The EU does care about privacy, but that doesn't mean it will create a private CBDC.

Again, i am not talking about privacy in sense of full privacy that would clash with AML laws, but regulatory compliance trough zero knowledge confirmations.

And ECB's interests don't really matter as their objectives need to be aligned with the legal framework they need to follow. It's where monetary stability, anti money laundering objectives are coming from. They are just following regulations. Just like they would need to follow privacy regulations.

-cut-
https://decrypt.co/318577/eu-to-track-crypto-transfers-under-new-aml-rules-eurogroup-president
https://cointelegraph.com/news/eu-crypto-ban-anonymous-privacy-tokens-2027

ZK/shielding/transaction sealing is clearly rejected by EU regulations if it allows for total anonymity (sender/rec
eiver/amount hiding). AMLR/EU regulations emphasize the need for audit trails and identity verification, as opposed to complete anonymity. In practice, privacy-preserving coins are considered a high AML risk, so to remain legal in the EU ecosystem, projects must modify their protocols to allow for identification and transparency, or be removed from regular platforms. The key is that regulation demands transparency as a priority, not technical anonymity.

The latest regulation has declared that total anonymity models and privacy coins will be excluded from the EU legal ecosystem. So, in reality, there is a contradiction between the privacy + regulation narrative and the regulatory reality. The EU does not allow for absolute anonymity in its financial ecosystem.
Therefore, concerns that the EU CBDC/crypto framework will turn into a totalitarian system are not baseless paranoia, as the foundation of the regulation is, in fact, for control and transparency, not anonymity.

https://www.blockchain4europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/BC4EU-position-paper-on-AML-Regulation-May-2023.pdf
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/circle-eu-policy-chief-patrick-115226466.html
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/762387/EPRS_BRI%282024%29762387_EN.pdf

I am aware of new regulations and many of the upcoming regulations. And maybe there's some miscommunication here, because i don't understand why are you bringing privacy coins to this, as they clearly clash with AML regulations.

ZK tech in general doesn't clash with it. It can comply with MICA and FATF travel rule, unlike full privacy coins like monero.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Don Pedro Dinero: If you want to be taken seriously <...>

By who? You? I couldn't care less. I was the one who stopped taking you seriously. If you want to do the same, fine. I won't put you on ignore (for now), but don't be surprised if you quote me and I don't respond.

Returning to the main topic of the thread, this is the latest update I have seen:

Eurosystem rolls turf to invite payment service providers to join digital euro pilot

What I find encouraging in the article is the following quote:

The announcement follows the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council’s recent decision to progress to the next phase of the digital euro project. A final decision on whether to issue a digital euro – a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for the 20-member eurozone – and on what date, will only be taken once legislation has been adopted.

The emphasis is mine. In other words, they are following the steps, but it is not given as a certainty.

[Abiky]

If the digital euro currency is only valid in the European region and not global, it will not have a significant impact on the cryptocurrency world. This is because its use is limited to the European region and it will be difficult to enter the global exchange market. Except for local exchange markets whose owners reside and live in Europe or whose companies are domiciled in Europe, only then will there be an impact on crypto, but that too will be limited to the European region and will not spread to Binance. Perhaps Binance for P2P and the euro market might use the digital euro as well, but the market will be limited to European users only.

A global, digital Euro currency? Good luck with that. Not as long as the USD remains the world's reserve currency. Perhaps, the EU will change its strategy and adopt EUR-based stablecoins as their own. Sort of how the US is doing right now by supporting USD-based stablecoins and proposing the elimination of a US CBDC by the FED.

2029 is only 4 years away, so anything can happen. I doubt Europeans would want a "Digital Euro". They're currently comfortable with physical Euros (cash). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the EU continues to push for this nonsense, it can only mean one thing. Complete domination of the eurozone and possibly the world (totalitarian state). Let's hope this never materializes during our lifetime.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

A global, digital Euro currency? Good luck with that. Not as long as the USD remains the world's reserve currency.

That's right, and that's what I said in the OP. Besides, in another post I put a link showing that even though Euro Stablecoins are available today, they're not even in demand within the EU. EU citizens buy and use USD stablecoins. If that's the case now, there's no way a Euro CBDC or stablecoin is going to be in global demand.

[Synchronice]

The war knocks the european door. This is an important point that no one talked about when discussing the CBDC failure in ECB. The first thought that came to my mind is about who will be able to use this CBDC euro at the time of war.

There is no war in the literal sense, because who will attack the EU? If anyone thinks that Russia is ready to attack the EU, whose members are also members of the NATO alliance, without it ending very badly for them, then they are badly mistaken. NATO has tens of millions of active soldiers from 32 countries, and is there anyone in Russia stupid enough to oppose such a force when they cannot defeat Ukraine in three years?

Not only Russia couldn't defeat Ukraine in three years but an US operation in 3 January in Venezuela, showed that there are levels. It took the United States three hours to catch Maduro while it takes more than 3 years to Russia to catch Zelensky

You know one thing about people, they don't like things that are too regulated

I wouldn't say that. Too many people have slave mentality and they want to be enslaved by the government, that will tell them what to do and when to do. I'm not surprised by that because freedom comes with responsibilities and people don't like responsibilities.