Good Question - Good Answer

Guest

The idea of a central bank digital currency has been increasingly mooted worldwide to help improve payment systems and cross-border transactions. For one, with the spread of digital cash backed by the government, physical cash will most likely disappear and users will need permission to use central bank digital currencies, so privacy will surely be affected. On one hand, CBDCs could help spread digital cash to the unbanked, but they may also pose a threat to peer-to-peer, permissionless, and decentralised cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Absolutely yes, this is one of many strategies I am sure being employed to retain control of any existing currency. It’s not necessarily “ sneaky” , but just a obvious step in the establishments pivot to crypto. Note by doing this , central banks and governments add that sense of legitimacy that crypto has been trying to gain. So there is good here. You can say “ game on!” now, in a much more forceful meaningful manner ….

central bank digital currency has increasingly been the subject of discussion with China aiming to lunch the first digital currency to help improve payment systems and cross-border transactions. To an extent yes with CBDC introduction could mean adoption of cryptocurrencies The emergence of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies opened the way to decentralized means of payment that are cross-border and outside the control of central banks. With CBDC it could become centralized and controlled, CBDCs would continue to be peer-to-peer, but could be universal or restricted to a particular group of users

Yes to both questions. The payments landscape of a country is critical to the ability of its Central Bank to manage the economy. In its white paper, the Bank of England (BOE), UK's "Central" Bank, highlighted some concerns about the evolution of people's use of money and payments. A Central Bank is only able to maintain financial stability, by being able to control its money in the form of banknotes and reserves. If new privately issued payments systems such as Bitcoin begin to dominate the payments landscape--and Bitcoin is decentralized--it could affect the economic/financial stability in unpredictable ways. In a previous post by Remitano, it highlighted scams and high price volatility among other disadvantages of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. A wide-scale adoption of a system with such inherent weaknesses could become collosal to a country's economy in the event of an elaborate hacking attack, possibly more than the 2016 DAO hack, or the March 2020 drop of Bitcoin by 50% overnight. It's the duty of a government to ensure stability of the payments landscape and provide the necessary safety for its citizens. Such concerns, especially of financial stability, safety and trust in transactions, are of major importance to governments, thus the need for a CBDC to provide faster (e.g. cross-border) and risk-free payments system. Control helps stability. However, coming with that is also a campaign to gain public trust and protect users' privacy on such a centralized system. China, for instance, first stated it will only support permissioned system, but in its most recent white paper, stated that permissionless system will be included in its CBDC, exploring the possibility of a middle ground. BOE also stated it may include some decentralization in its CBDC. Why all these? It's because being in the loop of emerging developments is not enough for a country's economy to be efficient and outstanding; leading the way and gaining the greater adoption is key to achieving national goals, and in this case dominating the crypto domain. China for instance, in its white paper stated "As the BSN takes hold in worldwide countries, it will become the only GLOBAL infrastructure network that is innovated by China, whose gateway access is controlled by China." There's a first-mover advantage, and a goal to expand economic strength--hence the apparent "sneaky way to control cryptocurrency."