Skip to main content

The case for central bank digital currency as public infrastructure to enable digital assets






I have dabbled a fair amount with all sorts of crypto currencies and their respective permissionless networks. In fact, I have been dabbling since 2012 which is by my last count a whopping 12 years.

While I have always maintained that I do believe the general concept for digitization and programmability of assets is on the right path, its implementation, the user experience, the accessibility, the fraudulent activities, and the overall inefficiencies permissionless DLTs have, never made me into a true believer. I have stated that opinion on several occasions, here, here and here.

There are still barriers to entry when it comes to digitization of assets: sustainable- and interoperable infrastructure. To illustrate this, I recently asked a notary public here in Zurich, why they can’t store the notarized documents as PDFs, the answer surprised me: because they must keep records for at least 70 years. Now, think about what would have happened if we stored these documents on floppy disks, or tapes. A problem that even NASA has to deal with, but in short there’s no guarantee that PDFs or the medium that they are stored on, will still be accessible in 70 years. Should we want to digitize this today, it would require a constant evolution or upgrade path for the medium and its data.
The reason tokenization of assets is so hard is because it lacks public infrastructure. That’s the same thing that gives us the road we drive on, the electricity we consume, and even the Internet itself.

Enter CBDCs


The EU is working on a digital Euro, it is meant to be a cash replacement, but more interestingly, it will be legal tender. In other words, merchants and businesses will have to accept it and because of that, one side of the network guarantees adoption, especially if merchants decide to favor the digital Euro because of the lower cost associated with it.

There are other attributes that make the digital Euro an interesting proposition for payments and money transfers, but in the context of this post, the most interesting aspect is that it could lay the foundation for the infrastructure that’s needed to tokenize assets. Not necessarily the digital Euro itself, because there will be certain thresholds in place, but by rolling out a whole ecosystem, that allows for the exchange of digital tokens (online and even offline) and that is governed by a public entity.

Of course, this is entirely against the original idea of crypto, namely the decentralization and being under no rule, but given that this hasn’t worked thus far, and I’ve tried to lay out in the articles above why this is probably never going to work, having a public infrastructure that is maintained, and sustained maybe a viable option to digitize assets.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Will Libra change the world?

I have some history with this – no, not directly but I’ve been researching the various attempts that Facebook made in order to enable their user base to make person to person as well commercial payments. I could be wrong but none of these efforts seemed to have panned out for Facebook. Case in point, Facebook has had an  e-money license  for their Irish and Spanish subsidiaries for nearly three years – this licenses are in theory “passportable” throughout Europe which would have given Facebook the opportunity to offer some form of payment service throughout the EU. I’ve known of some implementations in France and the UK but never anything that would have enabled them to go cross-border. In other words, Facebook has had to deal with the same payment fragmentation landscape in Europe and elsewhere than the rest of us. When Facebook officially threw in the towel by  shutting down  the P2P payment service on its messenger platform, I knew this was ominous. On the other hand, and like

Apples Vision Pro Headset strategy is all about its Arm-chips.

  Apple has given us a vision of what their VR and AR future might entail. But as have others pointed out numerous times, the whole point of the showcase at the WWDC 23 was to let people experiment, I’ve heard others say that it’s like the launch of the Apple Watch when Apple didn’t really know what would become of it. This is similar and yet different.  Just like the Apple Watch (and the iPad before it), Apple sought to porting its whole ecosystem onto a watch – granted, the Apple Watch can’t live on its own and a better comparison would probably be the iPad. The iPad can live without any other Apple device and unlike the iPhone, never really had a clearly defined function other than to watch movies and browse the web. It was not until it gained the ability to be used with a pencil that artists and designers started to explore the potential.  I’m trying to point out that Apple took 5 years from the first iPad in 2010 to the iPad Pro with pencil in 2015 to find its “killer-app”. But th

Will smart phone cameras be better than digital mirrorless cameras?

  If you believe Terushi Shimizu or rather, the way the press is formulating it , then camera phones will have better image quality in 2024 than your trusty DSLR or mirrorless digital camera. He backs this up with sensor technology advancements and computational photography. He has a point.     However, as a digital camera enthusiast myself, I must strongly disagree with this point of view. The message might be interpreted in such way that its meaning reflects a view that we are no longer bound by physics to get the best image quality.     The thing is this, the bigger your camera sensor, the more photons it can capture. However, this comes at the realization that big sensors require big lenses which in turn makes the camera big and heavy. I’m simplifying of course, but that’s physics. For camera makers it is therefore always a question of tradeoffs: do you want better image quality or do you want a smaller and lighter camera. Camera phones or cameras in smartphones, have changed this