Seven Key Takeaways You Need to Know About Central Bank Digital Currencies

As of late, there has been a global buzz around Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). After Facebook’s announcement of its proposed Libra currency, it was learned that China’s Central Bank would be releasing their version, which has been under development behind closed doors since 2014. Other central banks in Europe and North America have also been studying, exploring, and experimenting with CBDCs. But what’s going on? Why are CBDCs important? Do we need them? What are the implications? How will they be designed? I have put together seven key takeaways you need to know.

1.   Every CBDC will initially be launched for country-specific and policy-driven objectives.

Every central bank must carry out in-depth, internal studies of their economy and determine the best fit for their country. Some country-specific aspects to consider would be things like:

The population, size of the country
How many people in the country are banked vs. unbanked? Would financial inclusion be a good country-specific goal?
What are the existing payment infrastructures in place? Do people mostly still use cash? Or is it a cashless society?
Should the CBDC be used at the wholesale level or the retail level?

Some of the policy-driven aspects would be things like:

Is our monetary sovereignty at risk? Could launching a CBDC protect our sovereignty?
Should it be interest-bearing? Impact on financial stability and monetary policies?
Will it help to tackle tax evasion? Counter capital flight, money laundering, and terrorist financing?
Should the CBDC function just like cold hard cash? For example, should it be kept anonymous and be untraceable? Or should every transaction be monitored?

In short, CBDCs will initially be designed and launched for domestic use only. After country-specific and policy-driven factors are addressed, CBDCs can then go for cross-border objectives.

Bonus Takeaway: Although carrying out comprehensive studies are required, even the most holistic CBDC solution will not be able to achieve all objectives!

2.   For cross-border payments, interoperability between other CBDCs will be very challenging and problematic. It will be like trying to fit squares into circles repeatedly.

China wants to be one of the first major powers to issue a CBDC (nobody knows exactly when, but possibly as early as 2020). Considering its size and economic might, China’s CBDC will not be ignored. Other countries will most likely design their CBDC to ensure that it is indeed compatible with China’s. So, being an early-mover, the standards could potentially be set by China’s central bank, and the internationalization and digitalization of currencies will probably happen. But, some of the difficulties that will be faced between different countries will be things like:

Cross-border use and transfer limits
Managing cyber threats
Differences in KYC/AML standards
Differences in systems, i.e., different blockchains or different underlying technologies, different e-wallet standards
And more

These can only be solved through polite persistence and international cooperation. Finally, assuming that these issues are resolved, and everything works wonderfully, don’t forget about currency exchange risks. 

3.   For monetary policies to work, CBDCs must be interest-bearing, and the economy must be cashless. But in practice, this will be very hard to do.

If many people are still holding cash (M0), and a specific country has a significantly high unbanked population, monetary policies via CBDC measures will not be very useful. Theoretically, everyone must convert their cash holdings into CBDCs for monetary policies to have any meaningful effects. So, how do you incentivize people to convert? A proposed way of doing this could be done by applying – Negative interest rates on cash deposits (instead of deposits growing with interest, they are decreasing)However, this would not necessarily enact people to convert to CBDCs. The most likely immediate response would be people actually withdrawing from their bank accounts and physically holding cash. At least 0% on hand is better than -1% in the bank. Plus, people would probably find other alternatives to store it. So, how could this be better controlled? The second ingredient needed could be that: CBDCs are interest-bearing.

Initially, this may sound like a plausible idea, but there could be severe implications to this. If CBDCs are interest-bearing, commercial banks would be under threat. Central banks would then be viewed as a competitor or as the enemy – and this would not be a good thing. Even worse, if the central bank offers higher rates than commercial banks, it is likely that many would withdraw and place their holdings with the central bank instead. Even if this helps achieve the goal of conversion in some way, existing short-term and long-term deposits in M1 and M2 in the money supply could be affected in the process, potentially causing financial instability and commercial banks taking the hit.

As we can see, in practice, this will be very hard to do. It really depends on the central banks’ goals and evaluating what it takes to get there.

Bonus takeaway: Therefore, most CBDCs will not be interest-bearing, and they won’t be expected nor designed to have monetary policy influence (at least, for the time being). Later in the future, if successfully launched and integrated with an economy, it is foreseen that the use of CBDCs could become just an additional tool among an existing arsenal of tools available today to affect monetary policy.

4.   Marginal Utility: If the marginal utility to launch a CBDC is low, then why bother? Some countries may never issue one – and that’s fine.

Does every country need to launch a digital currency? No. Countries like South Korea claim they don’t need to launch a CBDC because they already have robust electronic payment infrastructures in place. The average South Korean adult has 5.2 bank accounts, and 3.6 credit cards, and their banked population is more than 95%. In other words, there is almost no marginal utility to design and launch a CBDC. Plus, it requires a lot of resources to build and launch one. Sweden also is already cashless, so it may not be worth it for the Swedish to do so either. But they haven’t officially decided yet.

But who knows – Koreans may change their mind later in the future when they witness multiple countries seamlessly interact with each other through cross-border transactions, and the Koreans realize they are left out of the picture.

5.   Central Bank Digital Currencies are not cryptocurrencies. They are just digital extensions of cash (M0).

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, by nature, are decentralized and are not backed by assets nor fiat reserves. CBDCs, on the other hand, will mostly operate on centralized systems and will indeed be backed by proven reserves. CBDCs may adopt some elements of cryptocurrencies, i.e., the way it transfers value without an intermediary, but it is foreseen that CBDCs will be “better” than cryptocurrencies because they will have the underlying trust of sovereign currency and the central bank, whereas cryptocurrencies do not.

China also made it clear that its CBDC under development is a form of digital currency electronic payment (DCEP) and that it should not be classified as a cryptocurrency.

Food for thought: Researchers argue that because CBDCs are just digital extensions of cash, it should function just like cash; it should be anonymous, untraceable, and non-interest bearing. If your country or central bank issued a CBDC, do you think it should function anonymously and be left untraceable? In contrast, would you be OK with your central bank monitoring all of your transactions?

6.   Public-Private Partnerships: Central Banks will need to partner with private companies.

Central Banks do not have the capability to distribute CBDCs. They will need to outsource the distribution of CBDCs to private companies or financial institutions to provide face-to-face services and on-boarding.

We can see how this could work by studying China’s CBDC model. Through a two-tiered structure, AliPay and WeChat Pay will act as distribution channels and be customer-facing. Businesses will not be competing with the central bank. By doing so, there will be no disturbed “peace” if the CBDC were to be rolled out. This is an excellent example of a potentially strong public-private partnership – and there will undoubtedly be more of these worldwide.

7.   Looking into the future: Interesting domestic & international use cases

As mentioned by PwC’s crypto team in Hong Kong, if CBDCs are successfully launched and fully integrated, this could provide the issuing central bank the ability to track metrics of an economy, such as a country’s inflation rate and GDP growth rates in real-time. Combined with big data analytics and AI capabilities, this could be a real game-changer and open a path to a new future.
Should a country be hit with a major natural disaster, such as an earthquake or a tsunami, relief could easily and quickly be provided to those affected at home or abroad. It would be interesting to track how donations are managed, where the funds flow, and whose hands it specifically ends up in. The charity industry will be impacted.
Cross-border transactions for massive, international projects or initiatives could also be simplified. For example, China’s One Belt One Road Initiative has 60+ participating countries with 60+ different currencies involved. It sounds messy to manage, but having CBDCs to unify and simplify international transactions between countries could make things a lot easier. However, this won’t happen flawlessly unless interoperability problems and currency exchange risks are addressed (as mentioned above in #2).

Concluding Remarks

Customer preferences around the world are changing. The way money is stored, saved, spent, and transferred is changing. Central banks are responding to the reality that this change is happening – and it’s happening very quickly. Digital currencies, either privately issued at the company level (i.e., Facebook’s Libra) or publicly issued at the government level, will be an unavoidable part of the global monetary system as the decline in the use of cash continues to accelerate worldwide. It is in the central banks’ best interest that they are neither left behind nor displaced.

So, there you have it. I hope the above takeaways were helpful. Let’s see how this plays out in the future – it’s an exciting time to be alive.

Image via Shutterstock

Are Institutional Investments Fueling Correlation Between Crypto and Stock Markets?

Interest rate hikes and runaway inflation has continued to engulf the investment scene, given that the global economy finds itself on rocky grounds based on factors like the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

To tame rising inflation, various governments have resorted to increasing interest rates, which have had detrimental effects on the financial markets. For example, the Federal Reserve (Fed) raised the interest rate by 75 basis points (bps) earlier this month, a scenario that was last seen in 1994. 

Traditionally, institutional investors were heavily inclined toward stocks in the financial scene, but they have spread their wings to include crypto in their portfolios. 

With macroeconomic factors like interest rate hikes affecting both stocks and crypto, this begs the question: are institutional investments propelling the correlation between the two markets?

What triggered institutional investors to enter the crypto scene?

With the onset of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, global economic turmoil emerged based on massive layoffs as social distancing and travel restrictions took effect.

As a result, governments like that of the United States adopted financial initiatives like quantitative easing or printing more money to caution their citizens against the economic effects triggered by the pandemic. For instance, the American administration printed more than $6 trillion for this purpose. 

As many investors faced an uncertain future, cryptocurrencies emerged as a leading alternative to fill the void as hedges against inflation in the long term, and institutional investors were not left behind. Therefore, before the onset of the pandemic, institutional investors’ presence in the crypto space was not felt as retail investors dominated the market, but this has now changed.

For instance, MicroStrategy, a Nasdaq-listed business intelligence and software firm has been setting the ball rolling in institutional investments with its Bitcoin holdings surpassing 129,000 BTC.

Institutional investors also played an instrumental role in enabling Bitcoin to breach the then all-time high (ATH) of $20K in December 2020 after trying to break this zone for at least three years. 

While payments giants like PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard have already set foot in the crypto sector, institutional investments can no longer be said to be operating in oblivion in this space.

For instance, PayPal recently upgraded its crypto wallet capabilities, enabling users to send supported digital assets to other wallets. 

How deep-rooted is the correlation between crypto and stocks?

A notable trend has been happening in the market whenever investors forfeit stocks based on factors like surging inflation because Bitcoin’s price has also fallen.

Last year, Santiment acknowledged that as the S&P 500 index experienced mild drops, Bitcoin followed suit. The market insight provider explained:

“Over the past month, Bitcoin and the S&P 500 have been correlating quite strongly, and that includes the mild decline over the past couple of days. Meanwhile, the inverse correlation between BTC and gold’s price has calmed down significantly.”

Source: Santiment

The S&P 500 Index, or the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, is a market-capitalization-weighted index of the 500 largest publicly-traded companies in the United States.

In April this year, the 30-day correlation between Bitcoin and tech stocks reached a 21-month high. Arcane Research acknowledged:

“Bitcoin’s 30-day correlation to tech stocks has climbed to highs not seen since July 2020. At the same time, Bitcoin’s correlation to gold has plunged to all-time lows.”

Source: TradingView/ArcaneResearch

The correlation between Bitcoin and S&P 500 has had various experts weigh-in, with some stipulating that the tightened monetary policy was the root cause. For instance, Joe Dipasquale, the CEO of crypto hedge fund BitBull Capital, noted:

“The monetary policy tightening is causing investors to reduce their exposure to risk assets, and BTC’s current correlation to the S&P 500 has led it also to drop today.”

As crypto prices plummeted last month, Edward Moya, a senior market analyst at forex exchange company Oanda, opined that a decline in tech stocks triggered the sell-off. During the same time, Mati Greenspan, the CEO of Quantum Economics, stated that the correlation between BTC and S&P 500 had reached a new frustrating all-time high.

Source: Mati Greenspan

After the Fed increased the interest rate by 0.5bps on May 4, a few days later, the crypto market cap dropped by 9.83%, whereas the major stock indexes in the U.S.– the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Nasdaq Composite – fell to their lowest level since 2020.

Therefore, tightened macroeconomic factors and investor sentiments have been affecting both cryptocurrencies and stocks, and the most likely answer is that institutional investors are behind the scenes.

Turkey Names Blockchain Expert to Central Bank Committee

The Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey has named Professor Fatma Ozkul, a prominent specialist in blockchain technology and crypto assets, to the position. This appointment was made by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. This appointment, which will take effect on December 23, 2023, represents a substantial integration of blockchain and cryptocurrency knowledge within the framework of the nation’s monetary policy.

According to President Erdoğan, the hiring of Professor Ozkul is a component of a more comprehensive plan aimed at reorganizing Turkey’s economic team. After achieving victory in the general election held in May, Erdoğan took the initiative to establish a new economic team. As part of this process, he appointed Hafize Gaye Erkan, a former banker at Goldman Sachs, to the position of governor of the central bank. This strategic decision is in line with Turkey’s growing emphasis on digital banking, which was shown by the fact that the first testing of its digital currency, the Digital Turkish Lira, was successful in the year 2022.

Since 2012, Professor Ozkul has been teaching accounting, finance, and auditing at Marmara University in Istanbul. His subject areas of expertise include auditing, accounting, and finance. Blockchain technology and digital assets have been heavily included in her academic and research endeavors, culminating in the release of a book on crypto asset accounting in the year 2022. When Professor Ozkul takes up her new position on the Monetary Policy Committee, she will offer her substantial knowledge and experience in digital finance to the process of establishing benchmark interest rates, which is an essential instrument for controlling inflation in Turkey.

The political and economic climate in Turkey has offered favorable conditions for the use of Bitcoin. Chainalysis, a company that specializes in blockchain analytics, reports that Turkey recorded nearly 170 billion dollars worth of cryptocurrency transactions between July 2022 and June 2023, placing it in fourth place worldwide in terms of raw transaction volumes. Because of the recent spike in cryptocurrency activity, the Turkish government is considering the possibility of enacting laws for the cryptocurrency industry, with a particular emphasis on licensing and taxes. The objective is to reduce Turkey’s status on the “grey list” maintained by the Financial Action Task Force and bring it into conformity with global financial norms.

US States Challenge CBDC as Legal Tender

Four states – Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee – have filed bills challenging the status of CBDCs as legal tender. These states have proposed legislation to exclude CBDCs from their respective definitions of money, signaling a growing resistance against the federal government’s push towards digital currencies.

Utah’s Stance on CBDC

In Utah, Representative Tyler Clancy introduced House Bill 164 on January 4, 2024, explicitly excluding CBDCs from the state’s definition of money. The bill defines CBDC as a digital form of money issued by government entities like the U.S. Federal Reserve, foreign governments, central banks, or reserve systems. The proposed Utah bill specifies that a CBDC “is not specie legal tender and is not legal tender in the state,” aligning with the Utah Specie Legal Tender Act and the state’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)​​​​.

South Carolina’s Legislative Actions

South Carolina’s approach mirrors that of Tennessee. State Senator Shane Martin filed Senate Bill 861 on November 30, 2023. Like in Tennessee, South Carolina’s UCC defines money as an authorized medium of exchange. The proposed bill S861 would add the term “does not include any central bank digital currency” to that definition​​.

South Dakota’s Involvement

In South Dakota, the Department of Labor and Regulation requested the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Energy to introduce Senate Bill 58 on January 9. This legislation also states that money “does not include any central bank digital currency” in its definition according to the state’s UCC​​.

Tennessee’s Approach

In Tennessee, State Senator Frank Niceley introduced a bill to the Tennessee Senate on January 12, proposing to amend the Tennessee UCC to exclude CBDCs from the definition of money. The bill adds the clause “does not include any central bank digital currency” to the existing legal definition of money, which currently defines it as an authorized medium of exchange​​.

Federal vs. State Jurisdiction

These state-level initiatives raise questions about the supremacy of federal law over state law, particularly in matters concerning monetary policy. Historically, issues like marijuana legalization have shown that state-level resistance can significantly impact federal policies. Opponents of the state bills argue that under the supremacy clause, any federal law would override state law. However, the effectiveness of these state measures against a potential federal CBDC rollout remains uncertain​​.

Globally, various governments are exploring the adoption of CBDCs. These digital currencies, backed and controlled by governments, are seen as a more secure alternative to physical cash. However, concerns about government surveillance and control over consumer spending are prevalent. The digital nature of CBDCs could enable governments to monitor and potentially restrict individual financial transactions, raising privacy and civil liberty issues​​.

Conclusion

The actions of Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee signify a growing skepticism towards CBDCs at the state level in the United States. These developments reflect broader concerns about privacy, government surveillance, and the balance of power between federal and state jurisdictions. As the conversation around CBDCs evolves, these state-level initiatives could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of digital currency in the U.S.

Exit mobile version