This paper just is adding a new shiny coat of paint to an already existing mechanism, just with new terms to make people think they're hip.
This paper just is adding a new shiny coat of paint to an already existing mechanism, just with new terms to make people think they're hip.
From the Central Bank Digital Currency section under the Intermediated heading.
Your financial transactions are already tracked by numerous parties. This is neither secret nor suspect. Without visibility over the transfers, distribution, and behaviors therein how would governments and financial institutions account for ethical violations?
Today I'm basically all digital as far as money goes. I can't remember the last time I handled coins or bills. I don't feel like I have no control over my transactions or what I do with my money.
There are a lot of benefits to cash. I believe that a digital dollar that acts like paper cash is possible, but you need a lot of technologies to make that a reality (e.g. zero-knowledge crypto, and then mechanisms to peg digital asset to fiat). It doesn't quite exist yet today.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw...
You don’t have money if it’s in the bank. The bank owes you money. Your credit card is a person liability that the bank will let you pay with their money, and they owe you less.
You have no control over your money.
There are certainly cash only markets and the unbanked, the latter a much larger issue than the former. But isn't the existence of crypto (digital currency) supposed to be the grand solution to the former problem? Or does the promises of crypto fall down when actually forced to be used as a currency in a mainstream sense?
The Federal Reserve writes good papers. I wish all government entities were as thoughtful.