Hacker News Reader

Comment by GenericDev | Hacker News Reader

No it isn't.

I cannot tell why I'm seeing this all over Hacker News.

A Central Bank Digital Currency solves nothing. It only emboldens and tightens the grip of people in power.

By definition it is centralized and forces anyone who needs to work in an economy to be accountable to an entity that can and will remove access controls to their financial streams. It does not change anything in the context of the current financial environment. It does not make things safer for investments.

The only thing this solves is having money be digitized and managed by parties who are not trust worthy.

Get out of here with these comments. You feel like astro-turfing.

View on HN

>I cannot tell why I'm seeing this all over Hacker News.

I think we can certainly speculate.

> I cannot tell why I'm seeing this all over Hacker News

I wasn't aware that others had made the same comment.

But afterwards I noticed that there was an episode on the Odd Lots podcast (23rd of March) where they interview professor Saule Omarova on this topic.

So it's definitely an idea which has gained some momentum. If you don't see the point of it, I recommend listening to the podcast episode.

> Get out of here with these comments. You feel like astro-turfing.

I am not astro-turfing. Not every idea different from your own is a conspiracy.

> forces anyone who needs to work in an economy to be accountable to an entity that can and will remove access

Federal IRS and county child support enforcement have ridiculous powers wrote in to State law. They can seize accounts with a letter. Good luck fighting their mistakes when they just seized all your accounts. Child support enforcement in counties are staffed with GED holders, and 'qualified immunity' typically prevents suing for damages. Having one centralized account for seizure makes their jobs easy, and will suck for their victims.

Long time lurker here with no alts.

Aren't tight capitol controls seen as a good thing? Surprised to see that as a con.

> managed by parties who are not trust worthy

I thought the idea behind CBDC was it would be a scriptable. Not trying to get heated here but are you saying the Fed isn't trustworthy?

I see the primary use case of banks to be 1) store and transfer funds 2) earn interest on savings.

Use case 1 could be handled by CBDC. Use case 2 could be better handled by literally anyone else

Personally don't have any strong feelings regarding any of this. Interesting to see people get so passionate about banking.

> Aren't tight capitol controls seen as a good thing? Surprised to see that as a con.

it depends on which side you are.

I myself prefer that the state cannot easily regulate and control capital, but not impossible for them to in dire cases.

E.g., they can control capital flow of criminals, but would need proof or courts involved. They cannot defacto control capital at will for an ordinary citizen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com