[HN Gopher] Bank of England to explore a potential Central Bank ... ___________________________________________________________________ Bank of England to explore a potential Central Bank Digital Currency Author : tyho Score : 204 points Date : 2021-04-19 09:36 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bankofengland.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bankofengland.co.uk) | lottin wrote: | Not sure if direct electronic payments without intermediaries are | all that useful. How are disputes going to be dealt with? | olalonde wrote: | Same as with cash payments or bank transfers today. | bun_at_work wrote: | What? The bank is the intermediary, right? | | For cash payments, is there good dispute handling? It's | terrible, right? And most people who are robbed of their cash | don't get it back, right? | MrMan wrote: | might makes right | cblconfederate wrote: | Central banks are going fintech. Now the global currency wars can | begin | sgt101 wrote: | Well - they began in about 1914 when the UK got out of the gold | standard. Very good essay by Adam Tooze about the recent shots | fired. | | https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/01/janet-yellen-mario-drag... | the-dude wrote: | Thank you, enjoyed the read very much. | danlugo92 wrote: | Paywalled. | the-dude wrote: | A taskforce is being created. That's all folks. | faffe wrote: | Indeed, you well sum up the article | ur-whale wrote: | Design by committee, what could possibly go wrong. | corobo wrote: | In fairness Bitcoin wasn't designed by committee and it's up | there with CFCs in how much of a detriment it is to the | environment | StavrosK wrote: | Bitcoin uses energy. Energy is a detriment to the | environment, but it doesn't have to be. | | The problem isn't the energy usage, the problem is that | we're bad at generating energy without killing the planet. | corobo wrote: | Ok so turn the safe generators on then | | Until then I feel my point stands | the-dude wrote: | The planet will be fine. You are projecting. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Governments cant just trust it to a single 'stable genious' | and call it a day | davidgerard wrote: | But don't forget: one of the things it's going to do is look | for a ... use case! | waterglassFull wrote: | We prefer the term "Do Group" | gm3dmo wrote: | We've seen this kind of technology in search of a problem before | in the UK and specifically with cryptocurrency: | | http://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/blockchain-startup-calle... | | This was sold as: our bitcoin/govcoin solution will keep people | from being evicted from their homes because banks take 3 days to | pay. Which if you spent 15 minutes looking into you would find | out it's a total nonsense. | neilwilson wrote: | Central bank currencies, at least in the U.K. where our payment | system is near instant anyway, is little more than a retail bank | account at the Bank of England. | | A game the Bank of England got out of back in 2008. (People who | worked at the BOE used to have the perk of a BOE bank account | with the fabled 10-xx-xx sort code) | | Funny how these things go in cycles. | itsdsmurrell wrote: | This is great... easier rails into hard money (crypto). | NicoJuicy wrote: | This just shows that blockchain is a good technology. | | But that bitcoin is just an implementation waiting to become | obsolete. | disruptalot wrote: | I've been hearing this for 10 years straight. | | Thus far the only successful examples of Blockchain | technology have been based on digital currencies and Bitcoin | has done nothing but continue it's success. | | On the other hand, there is not one example of "Blockchain | technology" put to work on anything that needed it. | NicoJuicy wrote: | We use blockchain at work ( not by me). | | It's not because you haven't seen it in public, that it | isn't used. | | Also: https://www.fnality.org/home which the bank of | england ( mentioned in the article) is a member of to | settle between banks. | | I also wouldn't see bitcoin as a success. No one that i | know of uses it in daily life ( except some being hyped by | it and HODL'ing it) | disruptalot wrote: | "Blockchain" is close to useless unless it is coupled | with being public, permissionless, borderless among other | things. The companies that jumped on this "Blockchain" | "DLT" nonsense bandwagon to this day do not understand | any of the fundamentals. Just using a distributed ledger | does not provide any benefits that they try to borrow | from likes of Bitcoin. Distributed ledgers have existed | for decades. | | Anyone that holds bitcoin is using it everyday as a store | of value. It's unnecessary to go into all the reasons | Bitcoin makes sense in this thread, plenty of resource | out there. Suffice to say that by any measure, market | determined or otherwise, Bitcoin's usage has constantly | (or even exponentially) increased since inception. Either | this hoard of people are getting more and more wrong | every year, or perhaps you're looking at it from the | wrong angle. | casi18 wrote: | I now barely use my bank account, i get paid in dai, i pay | others in dai. occasionally i have to move dai into fiat | for bills. hopefully these central bank digital currencies | help bridge that last step. | | i love it because i can write programs to move my money | around. I can stream payments with https://sablier.finance | i can lend and borrow with https://aave.com I get paid | universal basic income each hour from | https://www.proofofhumanity.id I use https://yearn.finance/ | and https://app.pooltogether.com/ as my savings accounts. | | I can take a loan against my collateral with | https://alchemix.fi/ to buy things irl. I have a | https://monolith.xyz/ visa card to pay for things with my | crypto (until bridges arrive). | | I can organise with others in https://app.daohaus.club/ and | vote in https://snapshot.org/ | | At what point have we satisfied your criteria for making | something useful and successful? I use it everyday, it | works great for me. | | (all of the above is just a small set of projects on | ethereum) | disruptalot wrote: | I should clarify, Ethereum isn't merely "Blockchain | technology", it's a more programmable Bitcoin (with other | trade offs of course). In that sense, it's useful for the | reasons you mentioned. The point applies more to projects | that think they can replicate some form of this success | by just hashing a block and stringing them together. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | This stuff doesn't scale. | | The 99% is represented by the regular normie citizen who | likes intermediaries because they don't want the | responsibility. | | The legacy financial system with intermediaries didn't | emerge from some evil dictators pushing it onto the | world. | | It spurred from the market desires, and the market is | made up of the regular normie citizens AKA the 99% | | Despite what the headlines say, the 99% as a whole | controls 99% of the total wealth and they dictate the | rules | casi18 wrote: | Maybe it doesnt scale? lets try it. Maybe 99% of people | dont want to use it? Cool, lets try it. | | We don't have to be 100% better, we have to be 0.1% | better. I think that is absolutely in reach. I think that | will be transformational for many. It will not bring us | utopia, it might have bad side effects, hopefully the | good outweighs the bad. | | And is this not spurred from market desires too? How do | we know the difference between genuine forces of | innovation and a temporary trend? | | I remember using the internet for the first time in the | late 90s, it was slow and clunky and magical. We had | twenty years of silicon valley startup culture, there was | some fun there, but it is so tired. Crypto-communities | are the most fun i've had on the internet in a long long | time. And the DeFi/DAO/Ethereum stacks feel magical. | | Maybe i'm wrong and it is nothing in the long term, but | maybe we dont have to assume the authority of the legacy | system is legitimate. Maybe the feeling of liberation it | brings with it, and the love in the community, will drive | the space to continue to out-perform the markets, out- | innovate the fintech startups, and out-last the legacy | systems. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | I get what you say. | | But I think you are projecting yourself onto the regular | citizen. | | The thing which up to now the crypto world has managed to | capture about the regular citizen is its fear of | inflation and strong preference for deflation which | allows him to increase his net worth without doing any | work, just by sheer deflationary force baked in the | protocol. | | From a purely financial return standpoint: If | DeFi/DAO/Eth is what the internet was back in the days, | then it's IRC. | | IRC didn't make any money. Facebook which is the | dictionary definition of tired and not fun...well it will | smash the record as the fastest Company from 0 to 1T. | | So the equivalent to that would be betting on the Bank | which decides to make Buterin the CEO or the maybe a new | properly regulated fintech startup which wears the mantle | of DeFi and the PR of Eth, but it's really an old school | intermediary. | | I get what you are saying about fun, but fun and finances | shouldn't be mixed, in my opinion. Because you'll never | know what other people who are not yourself would | consider fun and if they'd jump on board to legitimize | the community and have the token/stock you invested in | appreciate | NicoJuicy wrote: | A lot of jurisdictions if everything goes wrong: | | https://www.proofofhumanity.id/ - exists since 2021-01-20 | | whois unavailable | 1 Guy from Brazil on Github | | https://yearn.finance/ - exists since 2020 | Iceland | | https://sablier.finance - iceland | | https://app.pooltogether.com | canada | | https://alchemix.fi/ Charlestown? - France | | monolith.xyz | US | | No thanks. I'll keep everything through the bank in my | country, which I can call everytime if something would be | wrong. | casi18 wrote: | Those are mostly just front ends (expect monolith which | is just for visa, not a long term thing), I can make/host | my own front ends for the protocols if i want. | | e.g. the yearn dai vault address is | 0x19D3364A399d251E894aC732651be8B0E4e85001 i can call the | functions at that address via my own node with my own | code if i want to. | | It isn't in a jurisdiction, no-one else is responsible | for my money but me. That comes with risk sure, but it | also comes with liberty. They are decentralized | applications and I can always opt out and move somewhere | else. I can take their code for their financial | application, fork it and re-deploy my own version under | my central control if i wanted too. Imagine forking a | HSBC savings account. It is wild and crazy. Some people | don't like that. I love it. | | You can feel free to do as you like. A lot of the | interest in crypto is that if these tools allow people to | coordinate and communicate more effectively than the old | tools, then they will come to replace them. If it works | as we imagine then you may end up using it and not even | knowing. | NicoJuicy wrote: | But you're using all sort of things which i already have | access to. | | I wouldn't want all my money on a platform with "risks", | for something i already have. | | Could be fun, doesn't make it useful though. | astoor wrote: | _> This just shows that blockchain is a good technology._ | | At no point does the original article mention blockchain, | which actually improves its credibility given a _Central_ | Bank Digital Currency would not benefit from a public | blockchain (as distinct from a permissioned distributed | ledger). | NicoJuicy wrote: | Explore digital currencies is highly likely to be | blockchain | | > Meanwhile, the Bank of England also announced a new | omnibus bank account, a special account at the central bank | targeted at regulated payment systems. The new account is | well-suited to Fnality, the blockchain-based payment system | owned by 15 institutions. | | And they ( bank of England) already have blockchain tech to | settle between banks : https://www.fnality.org/home | Nursie wrote: | Just no. | | Hard money is not desirable. Whatever comes out of this "the | country's money supply should be determined by some cryptobros" | is not going to be the result. | casi18 wrote: | I get the "anti-crypto-bro" sentiments, but Ive trusted the | FOSS/linux communities for long enough to have open and | auditable tech and clear decision making, it might not be | perfect but it is a lot more transparent than my government. | | I'd pick the crypto-communities and thousands of people | gaming them to design better mechanisms for the everyday | people to use, than a few politicians and the banks that are | bribing them. | RichEO wrote: | I think you might be over estimating the overlap between | the FOSS/Linux community and the crytobro community - at | least as it exists in 2021 | casi18 wrote: | I think HN repeatedly underestimates the overlap of these | communities. FOSS ideology is critical in pretty much all | crypto/defi projects.I can probably pick any dev in the | space and they'll most likely be running linux. | | HN refuses to change its collective position it settled | on a decade ago. It seems people here got stuck on some | abstract projections of "crypto-capitalism-cruelty" and | refuse to admit there might be something interesting | going on. | | Where did the "move fast and break things" people, the | "disrupt the institutions" people, and the hackers go? | crypto. | | Or should we only be working on sass startups to reformat | pdfs. is that what we're allowed to work on? everything | else is a moral sin? | | Utterly Bizarre. | arberx wrote: | Preach! | Nursie wrote: | The problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be | anything interesting going on, beyond speculative hyper- | capitalism. All the problems crypto was going to solve | were illusory, or crypto was not a useful tool in solving | them. Instead we've had years and years of hype and | bubbles and solution-looking-for-a-problem but nothing | much of any practical value. | | "Move fast and break things" now has a bad rap too in | much of society - it turns out not everyone wants their | things broken, and some of that stuff was useful. The | world is not as in-love with the output of Silicon Valley | startups as it used to be, having seen some of them play | out. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Monero is very close to the original cryptocurrency | dream. Private, anonymous, fast transactions, low fees, | mineable by CPUs, can be and actually is used as a | currency. | bitcoinmonger wrote: | Agreed. The money supply should be flexible to help alleviate | the effects of inevitable financial crashes. | | This of course devalues the savings of the average person | when this happens, but it's the only way to recover from | mistakes like the mortgage bubble. | razius wrote: | Mortgage bubbles don't appear out of thin air, it's a debt | bubble. Why does a saver have to pay for debtors? | Nursie wrote: | Better than a system in which there are no tools to deal | with such problems, and in which monetary supply causes a | constraint on the economy, rewarding those who simply hold | the currency rather than the productive or investors. | dools wrote: | Inflation is almost never caused by government spending. | It's caused by regulatory policy that allows, for example, | bubbles in real estate or by external shocks like oil and | so on. The whole "fiscal policy will debase the currency" | thing is blown way out of proportion. I should also point | out that there are much better financial instruments than | cash to hold long term savings and they're being made ever | more accessible. | | The benefit of a government supplied digital currency is a | payment system that isn't run for profit. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | > Agreed. The money supply should be flexible to help | alleviate the effects of inevitable financial crashes. | | In reality, you either do it in secret...or it makes the | crash even worse because people would be even more risk | averse because they see the government using these non | conventional tool...hence "it must be pretty bad, better | save some more" | | QE is the quintessential example of this. The only American | who benefitted from QE was Bernanke, so he got to be hailed | as a hero and now everybody genuflects to him and uses his | "playbook". | laurencerowe wrote: | > QE is the quintessential example of this. The only | American who benefitted from QE was Bernanke, so he got | to be hailed as a hero and now everybody genuflects to | him and uses his "playbook". | | The US came out of the 2008 Great Recession much better | than the Eurozone due to its ability to borrow cheaply as | a result of QE. The Eurozone was hamstrung by the ECB's | inability to act similarly and the 2012 agreement to | allow the ECB to purchase "unlimited" amounts of bonds | saved the currency. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | US went down more steeply and emerged faster than the EU, | not because of QE, or all the fairy tales told by the | Fed. | | The US as a country is more dynamic, younger and more | risk prone than the Eurozone . That's about it. QE had | nothing to do with anything. | | In turn the dynamism and risk proneness of the US is | nothing compared to places like India, Pakistan of | Nigeria. | | The EU is still a bit more risk prone than Japan but it's | really close | | Japan is the most risk averse country on Earth and are | stagnating since the 90s , no matter how much QE they do | or how much they tinker with their unit of account. | Economic growth requires entrepreneurial risk taking and | consumer risk taking. Down there they don't even risk | going to the bar and approach girls, they hardly have sex | anymore. With this social landscape the entrepreneurial | risk taking which is necessary to start a business and | consumer risk taking necessary to max out a credit card | for purchases...that's a pure mirage and tinkering with | the unit of account or the plumbing won't save them, or | anybody for that matter. Just serves as a way for | Treasury secretary and the BoJ chair to keep his job and | justify his social status because he is "doing something | to fix the economy" | | Back to the GFC, the US went down more steeply and | emerged faster the same way a dude in his 20s can do too | much drugs, be wasted and out for a couple of hours and | then go to work as nothing happened in the morning. | | The destiny of megasocial groups made up of 400M people | are not decided by the few elected officials, it's the | elected officials who find themselves in those spots | because they enact the policies which are popular among | the 400M people. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | Who asked for this and where is the proof-of-ask? | | Also how can we make money from this? | kasperni wrote: | More info here [1], and a background discussion paper her [2]. | | [1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/digital-currencies | | [2] | https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020... | codeulike wrote: | They should make it work on the 'old money' system of penny, | shilling and pound, with twelve pence to a shilling and twenty | shillings to the pound, then use the abbreviation 'd' for pence, | and then throw in farthings (quarter penny) and half-crowns (two | shillings and six pence) because if there's one thing I've learnt | about finance, its that the more confusing things are, the easier | it is to make a profit. | Mauricebranagh wrote: | I suspect some of there more out there "brexiteers" would like | that - I have seen calls for returning to imperial units FFS! | leg100 wrote: | Don't forget the guinea: equal to a pound and a shilling, or 21 | shillings, for the purposes of bidding for a racehorse. | tim333 wrote: | Also the British Sovereign with a nominal value of a pound an | an actual value of about PS320 judging by ebay https://www.eb | ay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524... | Mauricebranagh wrote: | Because a Sov is actual currency you don't pay VAT and CGT | doesn't apply. | tim333 wrote: | Cool. | pjc50 wrote: | I see the scams are out in force selling "gold (plated) | sovereign". | tim333 wrote: | Not really a scam if they tell you it's plated. Now if | they sell it as a real one that's bad. | walrus01 wrote: | Can I use this to buy a hogshead of ale? | zelphirkalt wrote: | While in general quite confusing, I cannot help but notice, | that they used to use better divisible numbers like 12, to go | to the next bigger unit. | | I also read that Babylonians or whoever it was, used a system | with base 60, even better divisible. | | I wonder how it would affect our daily lives, if we still had | such better divisible numbers in use with money today. For | example 60 cent make a euro or dollar or whatever. Of course | then it might not be called "cent" any longer. | | In essence, perhaps not all ideas of such an old system were | bad in principle. | marcus_holmes wrote: | My parents grew up with the "old money", and my father in | particular always said that it was easier to work with | because everything divided by 2,3 or 4 easily. His opinion | was always that the new money was introduced to make | computerisation easier. In other words, the benefit wasn't | for humans (who prefer working in 12's), but for computers. | staticman2 wrote: | Humans have 10 fingers and 10 toes. We almost certainly | prefer working with 10s for that reason, all things being | equal. | chromatin wrote: | Many ancient human cultures had base 12 and base 60 | number systems because there are 12 digit segments that | can be indexed by pointing your thumb -- 3 segments/digit | x 4 fingers | nosianu wrote: | That does not make sense to me, since computers "native" | numbers are not binary and the layer on top would not care | one bit if it converts the binary representation to | whatever base. Not to mention that the wide-spread use of | the decimal system among _humans_ happened long before | computers where even dreamed of. So those things point to | the decimal system adoption having been made for humans and | not for computers. | | Countries other than the UK had done that step (for | currency) centuries before Britain too. | | Here is some background: "How Britain converted to decimal | currency" -- https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12346083 | | Also, | | > _the benefit wasn 't for humans (who prefer working in | 12's)_ | | I'm not sure what people you know, I don't know anyone who | would prefer base 12. That seems like a very bold claim to | me - I think I would like to see some evidence for it. | tim333 wrote: | It's popular for time. See you in an an hour rather than | in 0.041666 days. | Majestic121 wrote: | That's a bad example, because you use exactly one hour. | | If you divide the day in 10, let's call it decile, you | would say see you in a decile instead of 2.43 hours. | | As a side effect, 2.43h is actually 2h and less than 30 | minutes and not 2h and 43 minutes (unintuitive), while | 0.41 decile would probably be 41 centile, so conversion | would be easier. | marcus_holmes wrote: | I have no evidence for any of it except the anecdotal | mumblings of an old man ;) Though a lot of different | societies came up with 12-based systems, so there might | be something to it. | | It is clear that illiterate people could work in "old | money" fine. I suspect this is like the darts players who | can do the mental arithmetic involved in a darts match | fine, but would consider themselves "bad at maths". It's | a learning cliff, but like any learning cliff, it no | longer matters once you've climbed it. | oblio wrote: | The problem is not a micro-optimization such as using base 10 | or base 12. The problem is that we can't all agree on a | common measurement system and the biggest economy in the | world stubbornly keeps using an archaic and sub-optimal | system that it's actively pushing onto the rest of us. | | For example, instead of having screen details in sqcm (and | aspect ratios), we have inches (and maaaaybe aspect rations | mentioned somewhere). This is being pushed <<everywhere>> | around the world because of freaking device screens. | | It's like a comment about I saw about nature: if we see a | rodent eating a bug, that's a bit gross but it's ok (the | rodent being a mammal and therefore closer to us, so | "superior"), but if we saw a bug eating a rodent, we're | appalled. Right now the US imperial measurement system seems | like that bug trying to eat the rodent (metric/decimal | system). | veltas wrote: | Historically, metric was the thing being pushed. | oblio wrote: | The "pushing" isn't the problem. | | The nature (good/bad) of the thing being pushed is. The | imperial system is objectively inferior since the metric | system has been created. | jd842 wrote: | It's inferior for some purposes. It's still ideally | suited to the purposes for which it naturally evolved in | the first place. | Jenk wrote: | > Of course then it might not be called "cent" any longer. | | Would probably be called a sextant, which would raise a few | eyebrows in British politics if history is to go by. | isolli wrote: | My favorite theory explaining the emergence of base- 12 and | 60 is counting on your fingers: count up to the 12 phalanges | on one hand (using your thumb), then start over and keep | track of dozens with the 5 fingers on the other hand. | pjc50 wrote: | The funniest thing I've seen on HN in quite a while. You could | even monetise it by marketing to those people who are fans of | pre-decimal currency for bizarre political reasons. | mywittyname wrote: | To be fair, a base-60 system has some value over a base-100 | system. | | That being said, a pound is so worthless today that the | difference between 1/60th of a pound and 1/100th is | meaningless; it would just be a rounding error in most | calculations. | | I suspect that all fractions of a PS will go the way of the | shilling in the next 30 years. | pjc50 wrote: | Still higher than the dollar? We lost a chunk against the | Euro but not as much as I was expecting. The only thing the | PS has really devalued against is housing. | Cypher wrote: | boomers chasing the next big thing | globular-toast wrote: | Government run digital money is the second best thing after | decentralised digital money. Since the latter has not panned out | as originally hoped, I support this second best approach. | KaiserPro wrote: | I've not really understood the need for a "digital" pound, the | pound is pretty digital already. | | I can already have an entirely digital bank account from at least | three "challenger" banks. There are also now at least two | business accounts that also entirely virtual. "Faster Payments" | (customer bank transfers) are delivered in seconds. | | I can see a need for speeding up BACS, and reducing the price of | CHAPS, but apart from that, there isn't much wrong with the | pound. | | changing to having an open ledger(bitcoin style) isn't entirely | great as a normal citizen. I don't really want my entire | financial history to be picked over by advertisers, insurance | companies, future employers, and spam/scam bots. | | A government isn't ever going to allow a normal citizen to have a | anonymous payments system so I don't see them allowing a purely | private and anonymous currency (ala-monero) | rvense wrote: | Money is infrastructure, and the digitization of money has | resulted in the privatization of that infrastructure. I don't | think that was ever part of the plan, really, as far as the | government goes. | timelincoln wrote: | its a good point but more interesting to consider the history | of money as a private enterprise, aka fractional reserve | banking and independence of the fed, -> private financiers of | governments going back through the ages. Modern gov fiat has | been the best form of money yet but is still backed by | private 'lending' . Whats SUPER interesting is how the proof | of work -> proof of stake models continue to provide a | monetary system in which the money holders control the | system, it seems for now an unavoidable component -> good | incentives for value allocators | [deleted] | globular-toast wrote: | Yes, it is digital, but it's minted by private banks, not the | government. It's been a huge problem. Private banks cannot be | trusted with our money supply as they have repeatedly shown. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Currency is not digital. | | What they mean by "digital currency" is a for instance a purely | digital bank note than you can hold and transfer to someone | else (like for instance a crypto token). Clearly that's not how | things work now. | | Edit: See my further comment below as it looks like people | don't quite understand what "digital currency" is. | Broken_Hippo wrote: | So, it'll do a thing I can already do with money? | KaiserPro wrote: | That's literally how the BoE works. | | when you do a bank transfer, do you think they physical cash? | | When the BoE does quantitative easing, they don't actually | print money[1], they just "transfer" money to banks who then | do "things" with it. Its literally just numbers in a DB. | | [1] handling physical cash is expensive, slow and difficult. | Not only is the price of movement relatively static | regardless of the value, you have to keep on paying to store | the stuff. The Federal reserve do things differently I think, | because are not quite as all in one as the BoE. | mytailorisrich wrote: | > _That 's literally how the BoE works_ | | Not, it's not. | | It seems you and others are confused here and do not | understand what is meant by "digital currency". | | Digital currencies, like what is discussed and e.g. the | "digital yuan" in China, it to create real digital bank | notes / coins. Not expert by I think similar to a crypto | token. | | It means I can hold a digital bank note and pay you by | transferring it to you. | | This is very different to the current system in which I | instruct my bank to do something and to balance with the | recipient's bank. | | Depending how this is implemented it can be anonymous like | physical bank notes, or it can be tracked and plenty of | other things also become possible. It also does not require | me to interact with my bank. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > It seems you and others are confused here and do not | understand what is meant by "digital currency" | | You started of staying "currency is not digital", a broad | statement about which I don't think there's any | confusion, it's just flat-out incorrect. If it's not | digital then what is it then, analogue? | | Now you're talking about a particular form of digital | token, which OK, maybe currency isn't that, and the | usefulness of that isn't given. Saying "currency isn't | digital because it's not this token" is like saying ".png | files aren't digital because they're not .mp3s". It's | still numbers in computers. You know, digital. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Guys, please try to read about "digital currency" before | writing snarky replies and downvoting. | | Currency is currently not digital in the sense meant | here. Otherwise the BoE and other central banks would not | discuss the possibility of issuing digital currency. It's | rather the banks' ledgers and transfer instructions that | are digital. | | In my previous comment I have only tried to explain what | CBDC is. Perhaps I did not do a good job if so please | feel free to provide a better explanation that would | benefit everyone. | | > _" currency isn't digital because it's not this token_ | | I have not written that, so I think you do not understand | the topic. Here for reference to start with: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_digital_curren | cy | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | Your statement was "Currency is not digital." - digital, | full stop. Which is a nonsense. The word "digital" is | well-defined. | | It seems that you're now saying that "BoE Currency is not | digital currency." with a specific meaning of "digital | currency" separate from the definition of "digital" or | "currency". | iudqnolq wrote: | > Currency is currently not digital in the sense meant | here. Otherwise the BoE and other central banks would not | discuss the possibility of issuing digital currency. | | The alternative is of course that it's all meaningless | hype. Just because the government does something doesn't | necessarily prove it makes sense. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | From a government point of view, a "Taskforce to | coordinate the exploration of a potential ..." (quoting | from the article) often makes sense, and doesn't | necessarily result in anything much resembling action. | See also "kicking it into the long grass". | KaiserPro wrote: | Sorry I had confused your statement to mean shipping | physical currency about. | | your clarifications were helpful | Broken_Hippo wrote: | You say, "Real, digital bank notes" but really, they are | just numbers that you can write down if you want. That | number is worthless unless you do the digital transfer | (ie telling bank/service to do something). Realistically, | it is no different. I can do all of this stuff with a | bank, and person to person transfers are easy where I'm | at. You are still interacting with a company or | government to move your money around - and doing the same | if you are receiving money. It doesn't really matter that | it isn't your bank, even if you hate your bank. You have | to do this even if you pay cash for a piece of used | furniture: Most employers do not pay in cash. | | The only real benefit to this system is that it would | probably be run by a government agency and as such, would | theoretically make it available to everyone. This would | reduce the cost of being unbanked in the US and probably | improve lives. Honestly, though, you could just make | basic banking available for everyone so they can get | paid, pay bills online, and shop easily - it'd likely | prove to be more cost effective. | mytailorisrich wrote: | "Digital currency" is a wide term. At one extreme it can | be a token that can be used anonymously and without the | need for a bank in the same way coins and bank notes are | today: As long as people are satisfied that they are | genuine they are happy to accept them as payment. | | The point being is that what is referred to as "digital | currency" is not what we have now (otherwise the BoE and | others would not be studying feasibility and | costs/benefits). In that sense currency is not digital at | the moment. Bank ledgers and transfer instructions are. | Trias11 wrote: | Absolutely. | | Switching into their own digital currency (or watever | technology) government picks doesn't automatically make them | and their fiscal policy more trustworthy among businesses, | investors or citizens. | | They can't hide abusive tax policies, irresponsible spending | and desire to control their citizens wealth and financial lives | behind their "digital" version of fiat. | tumetab1 wrote: | A good example why current currencies are not digital, like | Bitcoin, is the settlement process of a public trade stock | which takes 2 days because of the current financial system. | | A digital currency would make possible to settle a trade stock | in minutes or even seconds. | | A digital currency would remove a lot of transactions costs | associated with buying/selling stocks. | betterunix2 wrote: | Actually, no. Stock trading is settled over a period of two | days only because of how the system is currently organized; | it is technically possible to settle trades at the end of the | day, or even in real time, and there are exchanges in the | world that settle trades rapidly. The reason the US exchanges | have not changed is inertia, and settlement periods have | actually decreased just in my lifetime. | | One real reason why digital currencies are not widely | deployed is crime. Already there is a growing problem of | ransomware demanding Bitcoin payments; a "true" digital | currency that was as convenient as Bitcoin and allowed | offline (peer-to-peer) payments (which Bitcoin does not and | cannot support) would enable "perfect crimes." This was a | concern raised in the 90s when digital cash was being | proposed: | | https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.46. | .. | | This was one of the concerns that prevented banks from | adopting e-cash (as the term is understood by | cryptographers), though I have been told by people who worked | on this that law enforcement agencies were satisfied that | they could still "follow the money" since the anonymity | property was narrowly defined (banks could not link deposits | to withdrawals, but banks would still know who had made a | particular deposit, merchants would still be able to identify | customers, etc.). | misja111 wrote: | The stock trade settlement time has little to do with the | financial system, but more with how stock trading is | organised. | | There are quite a few steps before actual stocks can change | hands. For instance the seller could have sold without | actually owning the stocks, it might be he even can't deliver | them, in which case the clearing will have to take care of | that, etc. All these steps could have been automated long ago | if the will was there, the reason they haven't is not because | of the currency used but because of traditional common | practice and legacy reasons. | Angostura wrote: | > A government isn't ever going to allow a normal citizen to | have a anonymous payments system so I don't see them allowing a | purely private and anonymous currency (ala-monero) | | Actually, the UK got pretty close to it in the 1990s | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondex | BitwiseFool wrote: | I don't know much about UK politics, but the government over | there seems to adore surveillance and has no qualms with | recording as much information as they possibly can. I simply | don't see them accepting the idea of an anonymous payments | system. | mywittyname wrote: | They also have an economy built upon money laundering, tax | avoidance, and other related activities. I've heard many | people say that the real reason behind Brexit was to avoid | new EU regulations being imposed on British banks. | throw1234651234 wrote: | Someone explained this to me last year with an example, and it | 'clicked'. The idea is to let the government control the | 'velocity of money'. For example, the US is giving out stimulus | checks for COVID - the clear goal is to keep business afloat | and people spending, but what if they just put the money into | savings or crypto? The government did not achieve their goal. | | To achieve their goal, they program the money with "must be | spent on consumer goods and/or rent in the next 6 months." Then | they put a "smart contract" on the money and say "can only be | spent if you are drug free and looked for a job in the last 6 | months." | | It's scary and I am against it, but above is the upside, from a | certain perspective. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | Japan tried this in the 90s with expiring vouchers, results | were subpar. | | The bailwick of Jersey sent citizens a prepaid card with | PS100 expiring in 6 monhts which was also disabled for ATM | withdrawls during 2020. Again moderate results. | | Money is a unit of account, if you mess with it people adjust | quickly, there is no free lunch. | | It's not the same as giving Wellbutrin+Ritalin to somebody | who is depressed. | synnejye wrote: | Then they must have be doing something wrong? Obviously | people would not be foregoing free money if it was easy to | get. You are arguing that people would not spend "free" 100 | usd on their rent if the money/voucher was directed towards | rent. | throw1234651234 wrote: | I think the key to what ObserverNeutral is saying has a | strong point - "People will try to sell their fake, | expiring "crypto-dollars" for real money, instead of | following the rules. | | Even if they can't see the "crypto-dollar" for less "real | dollars", they will just go through some medium of | exchange. I.e. buy toilet paper for crypto dollars, and | sell it at a discount. | | Great point. I didn't consider it offhand. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | "How bad things must be if the government resorts to | giving us free money with an expiration date to force us | to spend? I'll spend my 100$ card before it expires but | I'll save extra 200$ of my salary compared to before. I | have to brace for the worst that it's yet to come, it's | going to be really bad before it gets better, especially | given that the Government is resorting to giving us free | money " | | The more you use extreme measures to force people to do | what they don't want, the more they'd refuse to do so. | | When people are scared and paralyzed by fear, messing | with the unit of account won't calm their worries, if | anything given how out of the ordinary it is, it could be | argued that it makes things worse. | | Money is external, people pick the scheme apart rather | quickly and you end up worse than before because now you | look desperate to force them to do what you want | samsonradu wrote: | Right. Push this insanity too much and people will start | bartering using gold/silver/crypto and such. Then the gov | is forced to ban the use of assets and things get | complicated. | | Whether this is good or bad on the long run is debate- | able, but it would shake things up globally. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > the pound is pretty digital already. | | What you didn't mention is that it's also already pretty | digital at point of sale as well; Contactless payment, i.e. | "card taps" are very common. | swiley wrote: | Can I have that? I'm not a briton (perhaps I'm even from a | country you're at war with.) | | This is why digital replacements for cash hasn't (and likely | won't) succeed. | xwolfi wrote: | A normal citizen is never gonna build a government that allows | for anonymous payment systems. | | To often people speak of their government as completely | abstract separated entity they can only submit to. But | actually, they elect them and the government even follow them | in their craziest follies, like, say, leaving the EU in the UK. | thrwyoilarticle wrote: | We don't elect the Bank of England. And while it's government | as the US likes to use the word, it's not government as the | UK likes to. | KaiserPro wrote: | > To often people speak of their government as completely | abstract separated entity they can only submit to. | | it is a compromise. I don't want to live in anarchy (sorry, a | libertarian world) because like extreme communism it has | inherent flaws. Thus I submit to being ruled by the UK | government, and actively vote in elections. However as its a | compromise, no present party with a chance of winning power | reflects my views, thus compromise. | | However to your main point. Anonymous easy payments are a | vector for corruption, crime and general bad stuff. Sure | there are good usecases for it, but mostly it'll be used to | avoid tax. | dools wrote: | The important distinction is that currently all cashless | payment systems are privately run for profit which is | effectively a regressive transaction tax. | captn3m0 wrote: | So would switching it to a non-profit government body? NPCI | (India's quasi-government retail payments infrastructure | company) is a non-profit and they're looking to switch to a | for-profit. | | It worked quite well, I'd say. | insert_coin wrote: | Yes, instead let's have a government payment system with | funds expiration date. | rvense wrote: | It's also just a control thing. When private enterprises | control (and create) money, they will do so based on their | own interests. These might not align with the best interests | of society at large. | [deleted] | yunesj wrote: | Is it really your experience that the market fails to cater | to the interests of the people, and politicians are | uniquely capable of it? | | Politicians can't print a dollar without abusing it to | promote religion ("In God We Trust"), funding war, or | handing it out to get reelected. | aww_dang wrote: | Removing "payable to the bearer on demand" seems | especially relevant. | lainga wrote: | Well, in Keynesian analysis, the private enterprises are | supposed to create money. The gov't manages how much they | create though reserve requirements. | eruleman wrote: | "As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced | reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective | March 26, 2020. " | | https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq. | htm | KaiserPro wrote: | I understand your point and sympathise, but Handling cash | isn't free. yes, for small traders and personal use, cash is | effectively free. but as soon as you start to put it into the | bank, it incurs a cost. | | Depending on where you are, this cost might be hidden from | you. (banking in the USA for example is expensive compared to | the UK) | | However as you point out, those companies that provide PoS | terminals take either a monthly fee, or a percentage cut. | rvense wrote: | > I understand your point and sympathise, but Handling cash | isn't free. | | Neither are roads, railways, wastewater treatment, | communication lines or electricity. Money is | infrastructure, and it makes sense for government to | control and subsidize these to secure free and equal | access, as well as ensure that developments of them occur | in ways that benefit all members of society. | bitcoinmonger wrote: | This will be good for anyone interested in using modern | cryptocurrencies, whilst also allowing governments to control | access to accounts and adjust the money supply if necessary. | | It's a win-win for everyone. | | Also the energy required to secure the ledger will be | dramatically reduced. Proof of work can be replaced by physical | security, which is more energy efficient. | | Anyone wanting to rewrite the ledger would need more power than | the government has in protecting it. | KaiserPro wrote: | > Proof of work can be replaced by physical security, which | is more energy efficient. | | I'm not sure you understand how banking works. The BoE | already has a ledger, its just private[1] for a number of | reason (the banks accounts are published, but not in real | time, and not by individual account). All banks have ledgers, | and sometimes they even marry up. | | [1]well kind of. | bitcoinmonger wrote: | What would happen if you walked in to their server room and | tried to update their database to reverse a payment? | scrollaway wrote: | Simply, "It doesn't work like that". Very similar to how | you can't just "hack bitcoin and change your wallet | value". At best you can use your web inspector to add | zeroes to your balance. | | Transactions in ledger-based accounting require a source | and target account. In double-entry, all transaction legs | have to sum to zero. "$10 on Paul; -$10 on Alice." | | Your "current balance" may be cached, but it's never | used. Most financial systems (which I suspect extends to | banks, but I could be wrong) will enforce recalculation | of at least the tip of the account's ledger whenever a | transaction comes out of it. You don't just add/substract | from a cached number. | KaiserPro wrote: | You would be politely asked why you were in a restricted | area, and asked to leave. | | Currency is based on trust. Trust that the ledger is | correct, auditable and matches up. | | but to address your question, its possible to | unilaterally reverse a payment, but as you'll then have | to tell the clearing house to reverse the transaction, | you'll need to get authorization from thirdparty, which | is tricky. Moving money around inside a bank though is | probably much easier. | | However you're far better off just running a limited | company and offering loans, that's a far easier way | commit fraud. | bitcoinmonger wrote: | How do you know that I won't steal funds from your | account? | | Do you simply trust that I won't, and that your bank | trusts me not to do so? | | I suppose the question is, what's stopping me? Trust or | security? | KaiserPro wrote: | In truth? I don't think your competent enough to get that | far. | | but more deeply its both trust security, and legal | liability. | | First you need to gain access to the system in the first | place. Then you need to have unfettered access _and_ be | undetected. Considering this has been the number one | ledger attack since the beginning of time (which is why | tally sticks were a thing, and double entry book keeping) | There are lots of systems in place to stop, detect or | alert. Not only that you have the statement generating | system which sends out physical copies of the account | monthly. | | Second we would need clearing houses to not notice that | there is a mismatch in funds. | | third when you try to extract that cash, we'd need the | money laundering alarms to not go off. Which, if you've | tried to buy a house in the UK, you know is not at all | trivial. | | You have to realise that the banking system is reliant on | a bunch of very bored, highly motivated, fresh out of uni | graduates to tally, move and generally be the grease that | moves capital about. They will have tried all sorts of | tricks to cheat, scam & salami slice money. There is a | huge amount of effort going on to stop, detect and | deflect fraud. Mainly because the banks are liable for | it. | | So for standard bank accounts, the chance of someone | getting access to a server and changing the values of my | account and not being detected are pretty limited. Not | impossible, but small. | | And thats the key. If the bank cocks up, the law is very | much on my side as a consumer. the bank will be compelled | to reverse the fraud. If they don't they get fined and or | loose their license (although in practice, I don't think | thats likely.) | | With zero trust, if someone cocks up a digital contract | and someone extracts the entire escrow value, game over. | no recourse, other than to try and take the perp to | court. | [deleted] | selfhoster11 wrote: | > whilst also allowing governments to control access to | accounts and adjust the money supply if necessary. It's a | win-win for everyone. | | In what way is more government surveillance and control over | accounts a win for the average citizen? The rich will always | find a way like they do with taxes, and it's the average | person that suffers every time. | bitcoinmonger wrote: | I don't think we want to live in a society where | individuals have complete control over their money, which | is was cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin enable. | jfjfntntkt wrote: | Please tell me how I can transfer one pound from me to you | using a 20 line Python script? That's what people mean by | digital currency. | | If you are going to mention the open banking API initiative, | then what are the requirements to get access to that? You can't | as an individual. | | Also, this was the easy case, inter-UK. Now tell me how to | transfer using Python and without applying to all kinds of | regulators for API access a pound from a UK account to a | US/EU/Japan account. | JimDabell wrote: | > Please tell me how I can transfer one pound from me to you | using a 20 line Python script? That's what people mean by | digital currency. | | It's been a few years so I don't remember the details, but | I've written Python that was about that simple using | Teller[0] without any problems. Didn't need a digital | currency or direct access to the Open Banking API, just used | normal Pounds Sterling and normal bank accounts. | | [0] https://teller.io | jfjfntntkt wrote: | A good start, but still suboptimal. | | It gives Teller full access to your account from what I | read, can you limit it for example to just send money, | without them going through your statements? | | And it's still only intra-UK. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > And it's still only intra-UK. | | Wise (Formerly TransferWise) does forex. | | https://api-docs.transferwise.com/#wise-platform-api | 300bps wrote: | What happens if the person you send the money to doesn't | deliver? What happens if someone compromises your account and | sends all of your money away fraudulently? These are just two | basic things that the current financial system deals with | thousands of times per day. | | And what about fees? BTC, ETH and many other coins are | essentially unusable for smaller transactions. Sending .02 | ETH (about $45) from my MEW wallet costs .00292 ETH (about | $6.75). | pessimizer wrote: | Any government crypto wouldn't be a clone of bitcoin. It | wouldn't place any importance on anonymity, untraceability, | or immutability (quite the opposite.) There's absolutely no | doubt that there would be massive controls over any | international payments. | jfjfntntkt wrote: | The fact that there are problems to solve doesn't meant | that we should just not have the thing. | | What happens if I give a street artist 5 pounds to draw my | picture and then he flatly refuses? | | What happens if someone mugs me on the street and steals | 100 pounds from me? | | Should we not have cash at all because of these two | problems, and others? | lottin wrote: | The problems are already solved with the current | financial system. That's the point. | igammarays wrote: | There are countries where the centralized banking system | already makes scripted payments possible. For example | PrivatBank in Ukraine, by far the largest bank, offers a full | featured API for payments, protected by instant one-click | authorization from their mobile app. | KaiserPro wrote: | > open banking API initiative | | as you've alluded to, its not open to consumers, only | financial institutions, with good reason. It gives you lots | of access to do all sorts of things. | | > how I can transfer one pound from me to you using a 20 line | Python script? | | Now this isn't a usecase I had thought about. I mean there | are APIs that I can use to interface to a specific bank that | will allow me to do this. But they are hidden behind layers | of bureaucracy. | | I think the issue for _consumer_ banking is making sure there | is enough screening to make sure its not as easy for scammers | and tricksters to get money from you. | selfhoster11 wrote: | > as you've alluded to, its not open to consumers, only | financial institutions, with good reason. It gives you lots | of access to do all sorts of things. | | How so? There's no reason a bank account shouldn't be | programmable. If the worry is fraud and account hacks, that | already happens when the computer is compromised or people | get scammed. | KaiserPro wrote: | > There's no reason a bank account shouldn't be | programmable | | Agreed. | | But until we have a better system of plainly showing | access levels to one's account its a scammer paradise to | allow access via said API. | | You and I are educated in the world of API access, so | will think twice before clicking "agree" to allowing | emoji corp access to my bank account to "verify your | identity", but a significant number of people would | blindly click allow. Until we have either educated the | public, or made an access GUI that stops 99.9% of that | kind of use case, its just not worth the hassle. | kolinko wrote: | > But until we have a better system of plainly showing | access levels to one's account its a scammer paradise to | allow access via said API. | | Nobody says such API would be connected to a person's | life holdings. It could be low amounts that are safe to | lose in case of a hack. | | Of course, you need to educate people to not put all | their life savings into those accounts. But the same | applies to multiple other services. | pessimizer wrote: | There's no difference between this and the transfers I | can do on my bank's website. If anything, having a | government crypto account would mean that the government | would know who was on both ends of every transaction made | through it, and could trivially reverse payments. | max_ wrote: | Or better, 0.000001 pounds for streaming a song from my | privately hosted streaming service. | throwaway3699 wrote: | That's a tiny amount of money. Or are you going to listen | to a million songs for PS1? It's still reasonable to batch | a few hundred listens for a small transaction every month. | jaredtn wrote: | The parent comment was about enabling micropayments, not | the proper price for a song. Forest for the trees... | throwaway3699 wrote: | I guess I'm more wondering what possible value such a | tiny micropayment could be. There's no conceivable | business that would charge in such small increments. Even | an average ad impression is more than a penny. | | In fact, things are heading the other way, with | "micro"-transactions in mainstream games sometimes | exceeding the price of the game itself. | betterunix2 wrote: | Actually, the value of such a tiny micropayment is | negative -- it would cost more just to process such a | small payment than the amount being paid. | max_ wrote: | Spotify for example pays between $0.003 and $0.005 per | stream [0] | | In the music business u don't make money on each song, | you only make oney from hit songs. | | That song streamed 10 million times can earn you $50k. | And it could be more if spotify wasn't taking a bite out | of it. | | [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does- | spotify-pay-pe... | sec400 wrote: | You can sign up for an N26 account via smartphone app and | then use this (unofficial) python library | https://github.com/femueller/python-n26 | | I fully agree with you though, the Open Banking outcome in | reality almost looks like a joke. I only found the above as I | was searching for a while to find a way to do this that | didn't involve building my own screen scrapers to implement. | | There are banking offerings in the UK with official APIs | however you are looking at PS200/month+ in costs. | analog31 wrote: | Likewise, _explain_ how it works _securely_ in fewer than | 20000 words to a non-mathematician. that 's what people mean | by currency. ;-) | betterunix2 wrote: | That is kind of like insisting that you explain why paper | money is hard to forge in less than 20k works to a non- | chemist. | jollybean wrote: | "That's what people mean by digital currency." | | So often not though. Money without oversight will instantly | attract the most nefarious users that governments don't like, | so it's unlikely anything a government would propose is going | to very easily allow things to happen without some kind of | regulatory control. | | It's hard to fathom exactly what the point would be, because | even the benefit of reducing VISA style transaction taxes | from the current 2.5% to about 0.1% (which is where it should | be) would incur the wrath of the institutions that make money | from that and sponsor centre-right politicians in the UK. | | It's too early to tell, it could just be a political football | for now, something to talk about, get attention, distract us | etc.. | pessimizer wrote: | Why would the money have no oversight? It would have | complete oversight. | selfhoster11 wrote: | Starling in the UK already supports that (for individual, | mere-mortal customers) if you are sending money to an | existing payee. There is at least a couple of fintech | startups that offer sending money (or even full-blown all- | digital bank accounts) using a HTTP API call if you're a | business. | Nursie wrote: | That's very unlikely to be what any central bank entities | mean by digital currency. | | Open Banking is not available to individuals by design. Can | you imagine the fraud levels if it was? | veritascap wrote: | The reason for a CBDC are new features. Money that can be | programmed to only be used in certain ways, with certain | groups, or at certain times, e.g. expiring money. It's more | nudging power for our unelected technocrat dear leaders. | Imagine the possibilities! | Broken_Hippo wrote: | So, less functional money? More complicated gift card? | enos_feedler wrote: | If the reason the government doesn't want to spend money on | it's people is because they fear the money will be spent on | the wrong things (outside the scope of what they are trying | to fix) then making money less functional is actually more | functional. | LatteLazy wrote: | I think it's more like making negative interest rates or a | wealth tax unavoidable... | | /TinFoilHat | [deleted] | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | Just think of it as money-as-a-service | stunt wrote: | The only thing this has in common with Bitcoin is "digital". | The rest is pretty much opposite of what Bitcoin was supposed | to be. (And I say "was supposed to be" because everyone has a | different idea about what Bitcoin is today. But that's not | related to this discussion here.) | rvense wrote: | I don't think anyone could credibly claim that Bitcoin is | what it set out to be. The original paper calls it | "electronic cash" and in its introduction describes private | people using it for small transactions, replacing trust | with cryptography. I would hope that a CBDC shares that | original goal of replacing cash, though to what extent | cryptography will be involved I'm not sure. (I do doubt BoE | are just going to fork the Bitcoin code and spin up their | own blockchain.) | TheBlight wrote: | >I've not really understood the need for a "digital" pound, the | pound is pretty digital already. | | The need isn't for the consumer. It's advantageous for the | central bankers. With it they can more easily control | demurrage/inflation/deflation/confiscation (like the Chinese | government plans to do with the e-RMB). | bobthepanda wrote: | How is it different from what we currently have, assuming | that digital pounds/dollars/whatevers are convertible with | existing currency? Is existing currency not issued digitally? | | When central banks issue cash now are they literally sending | billions of dollars to the mint, trucking it off to a bank, | and then the bank records it on a digital ledger? Seems | wasteful. | TheBlight wrote: | The Chinese government explicitly states the new e-RMB will | help them prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and | "terrorism financing." The better question is, why is the | current system insufficient for addressing these problems? | bobthepanda wrote: | Hm. I meant to reply to the parent, not you, so that's my | bad; but I probably fat-fingered it. | | If they are in control of digital currency then they have | a ledger of transactions, maybe? and if you have a 1:1 | record of every single ledger then it's a bit harder to | obfuscate? | | Banks & businesses keep ledgers like these, but you have | to 1. get your hands on it and 2. in case of multiple | sets of books, you need to find the _correct_ one. And | then you have to connect all the dots. | | Chinese capital and lending controls are very strict but | this hasn't stopped Chinese and others to try and move | money out of China. China has had repeated issues with | things happening beyond regulators' reach until they | become too big to hide and then have to be unwound, like | excessive use of shadow banks for lending. | aww_dang wrote: | It is about giving more control to central bankers. | | Going fully cashless will make negative rates impossible to | avoid. UBI can be more specifically targeted as well. | | Generally speaking, the money supply exceeds the total | amount of cash in most countries. | roody15 wrote: | In other words a dystopian nightmare :/ | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Is existing currency not issued digitally?_ | | It is, but it's restricted. M0 is central bank money [1]. | Currently, only financial institutions have it. If the | public could open accounts at the BoE, they too could own | M0. | | CBDCs are a way to give the public M0 without putting the | central bank into the retail banking business. That gives | central banks powerful new levers. For example, cash limits | how negative rates can go. If cash were to become scarce | and most money were held as M0, the central bank could | enforce negative interest rates by clawing back M0. | | Negative rates are feasible today. But were they to go | sharply negative, they'd hit bank capital. Having the | public directly hold M0 removes that side effect. | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp | neilwilson wrote: | Monetarist concepts have little place in a modern way | world. | | Bank deposits are insured up to PS85k, which means they | are as solid and as good as cash. | | It's well known that negative rates only bind on | commercial bank deposits - if at all. | | Negative rates are just a tax on banks - which they | recover by charging more for loans, and paying less for | deposits like any other costs. | gscott wrote: | e-RMB would let them send out money as stimulus to | individuals without needed to count it as money creation | publicly. The Chinese will have an unfair advantage with | money printing without hitting the value of the currency. The | US cash payments to individuals has had a huge positive | effect on our own economy and now China can do the same but | hidden from view. China could take and send payments to Iran | and North Korea outside the traditional payments system. | Everything will be hidden from view. | treespace88 wrote: | I would imagine this could lead to interesting changes in how | people are taxed. | | IE taxes based on savings instead of income. | shadowgovt wrote: | In a sense, inflation regulation is already taxing based on | savings. When the value of the currency falls, everyone's | savings is worth a little less (and the more one saves, the | more one's relative wealth has diminished). | thehappypm wrote: | Though this is intuitive it's not really true in a real | sense because it's trivially easy to avoid this "tax". | Any asset -- down to a humble CD -- will beat inflation. | However, assets increasing in value also increases tax | revenue due to capital gains! | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | 1 year CD rates are currently about .65% in the US - well | below inflation even if you're talking Core CPI only. | betterunix2 wrote: | Which is why TIPS were created -- at maturity TIPS pay | the greater of the principle adjusted for inflation or | the principle without adjustment (so if there is an | extended period of deflation you will still get back the | amount you put in, and thus benefit from the deflation). | TIPS also pay interest, and the coupon is adjusted for | inflation as well. | arcticbull wrote: | Inflation isn't a tax on savings because you're not | supposed to be saving currency. You're supposed to be | saving value by investing currency. That's how currency | works: it retains value only for as long as necessary. | Investments, on the other hand, retain value in the long | run. No need to conflate the two. In fact it's a harmful | narrative to try and conflate the two. | | This is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of modern | economics. | matwood wrote: | Where inflation gets people is typically with wages since | wages rise slowly. People with large savings are not | sitting on cash. They are invested in things that | typically rise right along with inflation. | pharmakom wrote: | Digital currency makes negative interest rates possible, | which is either exciting or terrifying depending on your | view. | betterunix2 wrote: | Nothing makes negative interest rates impossible right | now, in fact it is a reality in several countries. | Obviously not something that is available to most | borrowers, but government bonds with negative _nominal_ | rates do exist, and even US treasury debt has negative | _real_ rates (i.e. accounting for inflation) for shorter | duration notes /bills. Obviously there is a limit to how | negative the rates can become -- eventually the market | will find other places to invest -- but that would be | equally true with digital currencies. | mywittyname wrote: | This is possible now, since there's a practical limit on | how much business can be conducted in all cash. | | Even if every bank account in the country started | charging an account fee to cover negative interest rates, | people would continue to use banks because they are just | so damn convenient. | sneak wrote: | Most US banks on the accounts of most US people (that is, | the non-wealthy) likely charge more in fees each month | right now than a negative interest rate would affect the | balances. | | It's really only the wealthy who would be faced with this | being any significant amount of money, and those people | comprise a tiny minority of bank accounts. | fab1an wrote: | I fear there is a curious feedback loop on the horizon, | where stuff like this accelerates flight into | decentralized crypto which then again accelerates further | regulatory scrutinity, including bans. | zzzzzzzza wrote: | uhm... physical cash is an anonymous payment system? | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | Which is why it's under attack. Here in Australia the | government considered (though later dropped) a bill | criminalising cash transactions of over AUD$10,000 between | businesses and an individual. | | Covid was also used in government PR to try and sell the idea | of a cashless society. | xyzzy123 wrote: | It looks that way until you try to put a lot of it in a bank | or turn it into "big people money" aka capital. Roughly at | that point governments would like to have some idea of who | you are. | aseerdbnarng wrote: | What I believe the BOE is exploring is for each citizen to have | an account with the BOE and the potential for the types of money | that can be used in this parallel banking system. | | If we think of the financial system as plumbing, the central bank | has direct pipes to banks but rarely to citizens. This is not | usually a problem except when you need to do a big emergency | stimulus push not having direct pipes to individuals means | stimulus takes a long time to reach individuals (if it does at | all). Even countries like the USA and UK had a challenge rolling | out stimulus, so this is a mechanism to bypass traditional | banking system in a crisis. | | Thats just the banking aspect, the interesting stuff is what you | can do with the type of money issued. For example you can build | inflation into the currency, to encourage the user to spend it. | Or it can be tied to carbon credits as a way to encourage the | purchase of environmentally friendly products. I am not saying | this is what is going to happen, only that a digital currency | directly issued by a central bank has the potential to be used in | ways that is not readily possible right now. | Symmetry wrote: | That idea is usually associated with postal banking - letting | citizens open a bank account at the Post Office that provides | basic services, no interest, but no fees either. | laurencerowe wrote: | The UK simply mandated that large banks must offer fee free | basic bank accounts to all and make ATM withdrawals free from | any other bank's ATMs. | | (Most bank accounts in UK have no fees if you never go | overdrawn anyway, but previously banks could refuse to open | one if they considered you a credit risk.) | dools wrote: | The government doesn't need everyone to have an account at the | central bank in order to deposit money directly into their | account. | | QE doesn't stimulate the economy because bonds and reserves are | functionally identical as far as bank capital requirements are | concerned and reducing interest rate payments is deflationary. | aseerdbnarng wrote: | >The government doesn't need everyone to have an account at | the central bank in order to deposit money directly into | their account. | | It does make it _a lot_ easier. The US, for example, was | issuing stimulus cheques because there was no way to directly | transfer funds into bank accounts. The UK had the same | problem, so they pushed their stimulus through employers. In | both cases there was no direct pipe from the central bank to | the intended recipient which is what I think is _most_ of | what BoE is trying to achieve. | | QE was the equivalent of using a waterfall to put out a | candle. If you squint hard enough and get drunk on supply- | side wonk-juice you could convince yourself it worked. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | > QE doesn't stimulate the economy because bonds and reserves | are functionally identical as far as bank capital | requirements are concerned and reducing interest rate | payments is deflationary. | | Actually reserves are slightly better! | akdav wrote: | https://link.medium.com/bhC5SA8JAfb | monkeydust wrote: | Probably lends itself GNU Taylor which works with central | authority. | | https://taler.net/en/index.html | canoebuilder wrote: | Bitcoin, et al. seek to approximate a monetary system, to | bootstrap a workable currency outside the traditional trappings | of a centralized state. Being digital is not the point, it just | makes the idea possible whether or not it works in practice. | | What exactly would a central bank "digital currency" bring to the | table? | | Dollars, pounds, yen, are already digital. | Nursie wrote: | The change here, from what I can tell, is that you could have | consumers directly dealing with the central bank, holding | accounts directly with it, cutting out the traditional retail | banks. | | I'm not sure one way or another if that's a good idea, and I | guess they aren't either, hence the forming a committee to | investigate. | vishnugupta wrote: | Indeed, that's the biggest change I could think of. Another, | minor but important, change is CBDC will completely eliminate | physical cash. How will that pan out is to be seen. | | FWIW, China has been the farthest on this path to the extent | that they are claiming they will do a 100% rollout by next | year's Winter Olympics. | | This is a really interesting phase in this space. | gajotron wrote: | This process of cutting out traditional retail banks destroys | liquidity, which the central bank knows it would probably | have to offset through either becoming an explicit | uncollateralised lender to banks or other monetary policy. | They are likely to be very conservative about that. | razius wrote: | Programmable money, they decide the rules on where, how, who | and until when money can be spent. | | See chapter 6.4 here: | https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020... | slimbods wrote: | If a business wants to hold cash outside of a bank, it has to | use bank notes. This would give them the option of holding | digital currency directly. | | Also you'd expect a ground up design of a digital first | currency to include much lower cost of transfers enabling micro | transactions and much better speed to settle. | scoopertrooper wrote: | This can be achieved while retaining the existing banking | system. | | https://nppa.com.au/the-platform/ | cblconfederate wrote: | It is a headache for banks, as they lose some of the rents (all | kinds of public funds going through them). This should have no | impact on cryptocurrencies. | calltrak wrote: | The "Bank of England" is a private bank and no one knows who the | real shareholders are. Just like the Federal Reserve in the | United States. The federal reserve is not federal and has no | reserves. | | Private central banks print money out of nothing and lend them to | governments at interest. The governments then tax the hell out of | you to pay back these privately owned banks. Think you are free | and living in a democracy. Think again! | m1 wrote: | Super interesting talk on this at | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7NB1_NtC4 | rahimnathwani wrote: | A bunch of comments in this thread claim that the pound is | already digital, because you can send and receive pounds using a | mobile app or online banking. But these transactions simply | transfer obligations (debts) denominated in pounds between | parties. They are not operations on actual pounds (i.e. on the | central bank currency). | | You can trade 'pork bellies futures' quickly, and using nothing | but a computer. But no one claims pork bellies are digital. When | people trade, they're effectively trading IOUs, and not the | actual bellies. | | A Central Bank Digital Currency would allow individuals to hold | and transfer 'real' pounds (M0). Currently, only banks and | selected other financial institutions can open accounts at the | Bank of England. | | If you think you (an individual) can currently hold digital | pounds, just because you have a bank account, consider this | question. If you have 200k GBP in your bank account, and the bank | goes bust, will you still be able to withdraw 200k GBP? | suprfsat wrote: | Are British bank accounts not FDIC insured? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Are British bank accounts not FDIC insured?_ | | No. They are protected by the FSCS [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Compensa | tio... | rahimnathwani wrote: | Even if UK banks were covered by FDIC (which covers only US | banks), the limit is $250k (less the 200k GBP I mentioned in | my comment). | | The UK equivalent is capped at 170k GBP per account-holder: | https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/ | nexuist wrote: | Does the FDIC cover any other country's banks than the US? | laurencerowe wrote: | While deposits up to some amount are guaranteed FSCS, in | reality the government simply can't stand by while there's a | run on a consumer bank. Northern Rock was nationalized when | this happened in 2008. Even with the FSCS, customers don't want | to risk their money being inaccessible while they wait on their | claim to be processed. | danialtz wrote: | You have a point here, but sadly most of the current state of | art in CBDC research avoids storing accounts at Central Banks | due to the obvious risk of disintermediating banking system. | | The points of others thread stays: what is the point of CBDC | for individuals if the supply is not limited and not stored at | Central banks... | rahimnathwani wrote: | I'm not up to date with the state of the art, but the March | 2020 paper from the Bank of England seemed clear that | balances would be held on a ledger at the Bank of England. | Whether the balances on this ledger would be assigned to | specific beneficiary owners, or only to intermediaries (like | retail banks) wasn't clear. But, in either case, only the | central bank could issue/mint new balances. | BayesianDice wrote: | There's lots of speculation here on what the Bank of England | means by a central bank digital currency (CBDC) - people may be | interested in the more concrete indications of what the Bank is / | has been considering in a discussion paper which they published | in March 2020: | https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/paper/2020... | | The chapter on Technology Design states "Although CBDC is often | associated with Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT -- see Box 5), | we do not presume CBDC must be built using DLT. Most existing | payment systems are run on centralised technology stacks, and | there is no reason CBDC could not also be built this way. | However, DLT includes a number of potentially highly useful | innovations, which can potentially be adopted independently of | each other, allowing us to use the specific features of DLT which | are most relevant and appropriate, without using DLT in its | entirety." | | The paper also discusses the risk-free nature of the currency | (compared to deposits held in a commercial bank where consumers | in principle face credit risk if the bank defaults), resilience, | and innovation. And it notes the interesting related questions of | whether the CBDC would be interest-bearing, and to what extent | consumers switching from commercial bank deposits to the CBDC | would impact the commercial banking model (using deposits to fund | lending). | anm89 wrote: | This is a key point. CBDCs have no intrinsic overlap with | blockchain or crypto currencies. You could use a blockchain as | part or all of the strategy for storing the data of your | currency but you could do it without using these concepts at | all. The more likely scenario here is that blockchains will not | be used here. | | People should not confuse CBDCs with crypto. They are unrelated | concepts. | danialtz wrote: | Amen. | | One does _need_ a decentralized ledger for CBDC, high | performance databases are quite acceptable, as there is no | problem of lack of trust in a permissined model (no | systematic bad actor). If you listen to Moser (and Chaum) | video, he even states somewhere the unnecessity of DLTs for | retail CBDCs. | | There are still some benefits but not worth to bet against | the blockchain trilemma in these early stages. | ohples wrote: | I'm curious what is the situation in the UK with regards to the | universalness of banking services, especially electronic ones. . | | In the US we have a large portion of the population that is | "unbanked" for a varaity of reasons and have to rely on sketchy | and scam financial services like those prepaid debit and credit | cards and "check cashing places". | rahimnathwani wrote: | Approximately any adult in the UK can open a fee-free bank | account: | | https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/basic-bank... | ben30 wrote: | I think the value here isn't for consumers. It's having a central | ledger that all of the main financial institutions use. No need | to a move a % of your treasury reserves into the central bank | each night. As the treasury department of Barclays for example, | the central bank of england can see your liquidity buffers in | real time, intraday. | yur3i__ wrote: | If this provides a solution for anonymised digital cash payments | such that something like paypal or a bank transfer isn't | necessary then i'm all for it. | matheusmoreira wrote: | It's a central bank currecy issued by a nation state. It's | unlikely that anonymity will be a feature. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-19 23:01 UTC)