Do people actually want CBDC?

[xenwork]

I keep seeing people talk about CBDC like it's some kind of "next step" for crypto, but honestly I don’t really get it.

To me it looks like the opposite of what crypto was created for.
No decentralization, no real privacy, everything tracked. Yeah, they say it’s about security and convenience, but if every transaction is visible and can be controlled, then what’s the point?

Feels like people are slowly getting used to this idea that full financial surveillance is just normal.

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Curious what you guys think - is this really the future or am I missing something?

[JeromeTash]

When we talk about crypto, we always look at the main point of focus, which is Bitcoin. If you go look through the Bitcoin white paper and see through everything Satoshi said, you will clearly see the reason why Bitcoin was created as an alternative decentralised payment system away from the centralised government-backed fiat system that is prone to inflation and can be printed at any time they want.
CBDC's are just an extension of the traditional fiat system... Nothing new. They will only slow down crypto adoption. The actual crypto.

[xenwork]

Yeah, agreed. If people start using CBDC and realize how limited it is, maybe that pushes some of them towards real crypto instead

[Kavelj22]

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Users are already divided into two groups. Those who use crypto for privacy/financial freedom purposes, and those who prefer using stablecoins dollar backed. A CBDC is just another form of fully centralized currencies with authority governance.

As a response to the main topic question, not all people want CBDC in particular, but I guess most of them don't care about their privacy since they already centralized services including personal wallets. It won't bother using another one.

Not that lunching a CBDC is still facing some real challenges l, but none of those challenges is about community adoption. At the same time, it is far from killing crypto in the long run.

[xenwork]

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Users are already divided into two groups. Those who use crypto for privacy/financial freedom purposes, and those who prefer using stablecoins dollar backed. A CBDC is just another form of fully centralized currencies with authority governance.

As a response to the main topic question, not all people want CBDC in particular, but I guess most of them don't care about their privacy since they already centralized services including personal wallets. It won't bother using another one.

Not that lunching a CBDC is still facing some real challenges l, but none of those challenges is about community adoption. At the same time, it is far from killing crypto in the long run.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal choice - some people are fine with convenience and control, while others care more about privacy.

[d5000]

They will only slow down crypto adoption. The actual crypto.

I'm not so sure about that. I think CBDCs are mainly a "danger" for other centralized payment solutions, among them:

- credit cards
- e-wallets like PayPal
- and perhaps also fiat-based private stablecoins like USDT, although stablecoins have an advantage: they can be acquired much easier globally (on crypto CEXes), above all in contexts where other solutions create obstacles due to regulation (e.g. international bank transfers). CBDCs would have to be blockchain based (most aren't or won't) for that advantage to work.

I think the competition of CBDCs with Bitcoin is very much non-existant and so they won't slow down adoption at all. That was a FUD/scare in the mid 2010s when Bitcoin was still young and CBDCs were first proposed. But back then the situation was different: Online wallets were not nearly as used as now. So some people hoped Bitcoin would become the "first popular digital money" - ignoring that it was still way too volatile for that. And in that context, a CBDC would have been considered a threat, at least if it could have been acquired by everybody on the world. Because a popular USD or EUR based CBDC could have come before Bitcoin adoption.

But now banks have already upgraded to modern digital payment solutions. That "train" - to be the first global digital money - is gone for Bitcoin (but also for CBDCs). Bitcoin (and most other cryptocurrencies) have indeed a very different public; those who want censorship resistance and protection against inflation.

[Barikui1]

When we talk about crypto, we always look at the main point of focus, which is Bitcoin. If you go look through the Bitcoin white paper and see through everything Satoshi said, you will clearly see the reason why Bitcoin was created as an alternative decentralised payment system away from the centralised government-backed fiat system that is prone to inflation and can be printed at any time they want.
CBDC's are just an extension of the traditional fiat system... Nothing new. They will only slow down crypto adoption. The actual crypto.

I think that you have said it all in your detailed explanation on what cbdc stands for. It's not different from our everyday fiat currency, so i don't expect people to act differently towards it, since their is nothing special about it, because no well informed crypto enthusiastic will choose cbdc over Bitcoin that is 100% decentralized, so I believe that Bitcoin will still get the attention it's getting now and the adoption may even increase later in the future, due to it privacy and the opportunity in it, investment wise.

[Taskford]

They will only slow down crypto adoption. The actual crypto.

I'm not so sure about that. I think CBDCs are mainly a "danger" for other centralized payment solutions, among them:

- credit cards
- e-wallets like PayPal
- and perhaps also fiat-based private stablecoins like USDT, although stablecoins have an advantage: they can be acquired much easier globally (on crypto CEXes), above all in contexts where other solutions create obstacles due to regulation (e.g. international bank transfers). CBDCs would have to be blockchain based (most aren't or won't) for that advantage to work.

I think the competition of CBDCs with Bitcoin is very much non-existant and so they won't slow down adoption at all. That was a FUD/scare in the mid 2010s when Bitcoin was still young and CBDCs were first proposed. But back then the situation was different: Online wallets were not nearly as used as now. So some people hoped Bitcoin would become the "first popular digital money" - ignoring that it was still way too volatile for that. And in that context, a CBDC would have been considered a threat, at least if it could have been acquired by everybody on the world. Because a popular USD or EUR based CBDC could have come before Bitcoin adoption.

But now banks have already upgraded to modern digital payment solutions. That "train" - to be the first global digital money - is gone for Bitcoin (but also for CBDCs). Bitcoin (and most other cryptocurrencies) have indeed a very different public; those who want censorship resistance and protection against inflation.

Maybe people are overexaggerating those situation and think the existence of CBDC is threat of Bitcoin. While in fact the real intention on why CBDC is created is to modernize and compete with those centralized payment solution that you have been mentioned.

Bitcoin played in different field and this is not actually directly affected if CBDC succeed. The rumors before on which some people says that CBDC can possibly slow down the Bitcoin adoption is I think a FUD.

We have seen banks modernize their digital payment system now and this is the reason the hype of CBDC is gone. CBDC maybe can reshape those centralize payment system, but Bitcoin will surely be remain untouched.

[xenwork]

I wouldn’t say the impact is zero. Yes, CBDCs don’t directly compete with Bitcoin - they have different goals. But they can have an indirect effect: if people are given a convenient "state crypto" option, many simply won’t bother exploring real crypto. On the other hand, the more control CBDCs introduce, the more it could push some people toward decentralization. In the end, it will likely just deepen the divide between users even more than now.

[Kavelj22]

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Users are already divided into two groups. Those who use crypto for privacy/financial freedom purposes, and those who prefer using stablecoins dollar backed. A CBDC is just another form of fully centralized currencies with authority governance.

As a response to the main topic question, not all people want CBDC in particular, but I guess most of them don't care about their privacy since they already centralized services including personal wallets. It won't bother using another one.

Not that lunching a CBDC is still facing some real challenges l, but none of those challenges is about community adoption. At the same time, it is far from killing crypto in the long run.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal choice - some people are fine with convenience and control, while others care more about privacy.

It is not a matter of choice as much as it is a culture. The banking culture I mean. People used not to take care about the responsibility to protect their savings and perform secure private payment transactions. Most of crypto users are investors, which means they are not using cryptocurrencies for daily life payments. Nothing would explain why they prefer CEX over DEX because they can behave as they used in banks with traditional money.

Despite considering CBDC a failure in the crypto space, no doubts that it would be successful by use. However it might represent a threat to traditional monetary system.

[d5000]

While in fact the real intention on why CBDC is created is to modernize and compete with those centralized payment solution that you have been mentioned.

Yes, above all in the case of countries with no strong own credit card / ewallet options. Europe for example has very few ewallet providers and no own international credit card network at all. So the European Central Bank justifies their CBDC with the need to avoid to have to pay a fee to US credit card companies and networks for every payment, which is a continuous flow of money.

However, I think it's reasonable to be skeptic against CBDCs from a data/privacy standpoint. Even if a Central Bank is democratically controlled, with the excuse of "providing more security", data protection measures could be weakened more and more and the CBDCs then become a privacy nightmare. Because while bank based payments also are trackable, the authorities have to request these data in an additional step, while in the CBDC case both the provider and law enforcement are both "public".

But they can have an indirect effect: if people are given a convenient "state crypto" option, many simply won’t bother exploring real crypto.

But why should they?

Why are people using crypto? Most are using it for speculation and trading due to their volatility, or as an "saving asset" to protect against inflation. CBDCs cannot provide neither of that. They are in much aspects not better than PayPal-style solutions.

The only use case I can think of is DeFi. But I think this is not really a massive public. And the CBDC would need to provide the smart contracting structures to be used for DeFi. I think current CBDCs do not offer that, although some probably are planning it.

It is of course possible that if a CBDC offers complex smart contracting functionality, that then you could create things like meme tokens based on them. But even if some people think that might be a pity if the "crypto" sector loses this kind of market to CBDCs, I expect heavy regulation and thus much less appeal for CBDC-based tokens than for e.g. Ethereum-based tokens.

[passwordnow]

I keep seeing people talk about CBDC like it's some kind of "next step" for crypto, but honestly I don’t really get it.

To me it looks like the opposite of what crypto was created for.
No decentralization, no real privacy, everything tracked. Yeah, they say it’s about security and convenience, but if every transaction is visible and can be controlled, then what’s the point?

Feels like people are slowly getting used to this idea that full financial surveillance is just normal.

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Curious what you guys think - is this really the future or am I missing something?

We have the same thoughts about it. The others are too optimistic about it but they're missing the whole point of crypto. And have to put that in note that CBDCs are made by the governments and that's opposite to what crypto is advocating which is decentralization. As for it splitting the users or the investors, it won't be that much worry to be honest. The market has been split already by so many altcoins to Bitcoin and that is why this isn't going to be a problem that you have to think about. The market cap might split as well but it's tolerable.

[Ruttoshi]

It's impossible for CBDC to kill crypto because they're two different things entirely. CBDC isn't volatile and is the digital fiat of a country. It cannot generate profits in short term or long term making it useless for traders and long-term investors to make profits. Don't forget that majority of people in the cryptospace are after profits.

The potential of bitcoin and its utility is great which will lead to more adoption in future because it's opposite to CBDC. Only payment processors will be affected. The cryptospace is too big for CBDC to take over the cryptospace.

[jossiel]

I wouldn’t say the impact is zero. Yes, CBDCs don’t directly compete with Bitcoin - they have different goals. But they can have an indirect effect: if people are given a convenient "state crypto" option, many simply won’t bother exploring real crypto. On the other hand, the more control CBDCs introduce, the more it could push some people toward decentralization. In the end, it will likely just deepen the divide between users even more than now.

I don't think that it will stop people from urging to get involved into the real crypto.

This is going to be a choice of safe haven for people that want to lessen the risk in crypto because it's a state backed stable coin.

And they have the guarantee that it's value won't be depegged to its government's currency. IMO, it's another source for money to add more market capitalization to specific cryptos, ex. Bitcoin.

[Ahli38]

I keep seeing people talk about CBDC like it's some kind of "next step" for crypto, but honestly I don’t really get it.

To me it looks like the opposite of what crypto was created for.
No decentralization, no real privacy, everything tracked. Yeah, they say it’s about security and convenience, but if every transaction is visible and can be controlled, then what’s the point?

Feels like people are slowly getting used to this idea that full financial surveillance is just normal.

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Curious what you guys think - is this really the future or am I missing something?

CBDC is not the next step for crypto because it remains centralized. It can still be controlled and even its regulation is entirely in the hands of the central bank. They can still make changes to the ledger on the private blockchain network they control. So I personally believe that the product they’ve created is fundamentally at odds with decentralized crypto. And I think they’re using blockchain technology solely for centralized purposes. CBDC is not the future of crypto. And I personally don’t think CBDC will be able to kill crypto as it isn’t particularly essential to use. I don’t see any use case for CBDC that I would consider a step forward.

[TastyChillySauce00]

I keep seeing people talk about CBDC like it's some kind of "next step" for crypto, but honestly I don’t really get it.

Honestly, nobody who actually cares about crypto consider CBDC as the next step for crypto, CBDC is a nuisance than actual innovation because some country want to create their own thing/got too much ego to follow the US path on allowing private company to issue stablecoins freely which in turn gives users so many alternative that they want.

They could simply come up with regulation that allows stablecoin issuing with some requirements and push for treasury bond buyings instead to back the stablecoin.

[o48o]

-cut-
To me it looks like the opposite of what crypto was created for.
No decentralization, no real privacy, everything tracked. Yeah, they say it’s about security and convenience, but if every transaction is visible and can be controlled, then what’s the point?
-cut-
I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

It has nothing to do with crypto. I don't think that even people who are designing the framework for it consider it in any way as a cryptocurrency related project. Only people comparing it to cryptocurrency are people who are shilling cryptos and who think that now government is adopting their technology, hence making cryptocurrencies more essential.

And about splitting users... Whole scene has been split since forever, and with more altcoins it has divided even more, and fractioned into tribes.

[Exitoral]

The youth adopted crypto as a means of sending and  receiving the only problem for governments is that they have no control over cryptocurrency. All they did next was to create CBDC. Another form of control that's closer to cryptocurrency.

I feel like the government needs to a form of control over it's citizens and anytime we opt out of that, they come with another strategy to still control us. That's fucked up man.

You made mention of two groups that will be separated. I go for team privacy. Need no one keeping an eye for me on my money.

CBDC can never and will never kill crypto. What is even worst that most people actually do think having that is having cryptocurrency.

Nigeria launched their own CBDC and it woefully failed. It's a good sign that people are aware of it downside.

[Alpha Marine]

I'm not so sure about that. I think CBDCs are mainly a "danger" for other centralized payment solutions, among them:

- credit cards
- e-wallets like PayPal
- and perhaps also fiat-based private stablecoins like USDT, although stablecoins have an advantage: they can be acquired much easier globally (on crypto CEXes), above all in contexts where other solutions create obstacles due to regulation (e.g. international bank transfers). CBDCs would have to be blockchain based (most aren't or won't) for that advantage to work.

This is true. The competition for CBDC is not crypto and certainly not Bitcoin, but I don't think the government realised this. Their initial goal was a competition for crypto. I remember in 2023 when the talks of CBDC were at their peak, the government, IMF, and central banks wanted a "better system" than crypto. If they wanted it to compete against credit cards and e-wallets, they would have created it, but they saw that they couldn't force people to abandon crypto and pick up their own form of cryptocurrency simply because they said so. It needs to have trust, and they couldn't come up with a way that they can do that without making it crypto, which they were so against. That is why the dream did not work out.

Central banks have never had issues with credit cards and other payment services because they all make use of fiat. If Bitcoin were a payment service that uses fiat, they would have no issue with it. So I don't believe they would look for a system to replace credit cards and the rest.

I think the competition of CBDCs with Bitcoin is very much non-existant and so they won't slow down adoption at all. That was a FUD/scare in the mid 2010s when Bitcoin was still young and CBDCs were first proposed. But back then the situation was different:

It was never a threat to Bitcoin. There was never a competition. The government thought there would be, but they were wrong. They wanted something that would slow down Bitcoin's growth, but there was no way they were going to do it so that it would not be inferior to Bitcoin. Some countries realised this early and decided to hold off, while the one that launched theirs, the project failed on arriaval.

[rodskee]

I don’t think CBDC will kill crypto, but it might split users into two groups:
those who don’t care much about privacy and those who actually do.

Curious what you guys think - is this really the future or am I missing something?

the split has already happened

you will see those who buy etfs for example are those who don’t really give much of a care about decentralization or privacy so most likely they are also the ones who will benefit from cbdc

as crypto grows, so the kind of people that knows and engages with it