The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has begun a multi-year consultation round on a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) for the country, without committing to issue such digital cash until sometime around 2030, perhaps.
A NZ CBDC would be similar to cryptocurrency, but equal in value to the country's fiat money. One of the positives the RBNZ sees with a CBDC is the provision of a new open, interoperable and safe payments platform, with built-in functionality to encourage a rich ecosystem.
CBDC users would not need to operate bank accounts either, only digital wallets, smartphones or payment cards for the digital cash.
Despite what appears to be compelling advantages, the experience from Caribbean nations suggests that the success of a digital cash system is far from assured.
Earlier this month, the Federal Bank of Kansas City (FBKC) published a briefing document with observations on existing retail CBDCs in use in Caribbean economies, noting that all have struggled to achieve expected adoption from both consumers and merchants.
The CBDCs are the Bahamian Sand Dollar introduced in 2020, DCash from the eight-nation Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU) and Jamaica's JAM-DEX that arrived in 2022.
In all three cases, the main goal was to shift physical cash economies into digital ones, but the CBDCs have not demonstrated the value added for consumers to embrace it.
While the Sand Dollar and cash systems are built on private, permissioned blockchain ledgers, JAM-DEX uses a centralised equivalent, controlled by the Bank of Jamaica.
In all cases, payments are made with smartphones and digital wallets.
The underlying technology for CBDCs appears to be relatively unimportant, however, with all three Caribbean digital cash systems using different foundations.
FBKC notes that the new digital payments methods have seemed to have fallen flat with consumers, merchants and in some cases, the financial institutions meant to operate the payments platforms.
About one year after the Sand Dollar went nationwide (October 20, 2020), Sand Dollar circulation reached around B$300,000; however, adoption was relatively flat for the following year. In May 2023, the Sand Dollar had about 104,664 consumer wallets and around 1,500 merchant wallets (CBOB 2023). After a series of Sand Dollar educational campaigns, promotions, and giveaways—as well as the integration of the rCBDC with government payments and the ACH system—circulation rose by about B$1 million, reaching B$1,099,910 by September 2023 (Branch, Ward, and Wright 2023). Still, this value amounts to only 0.19 percent of the total currency in circulation at the time.
For DCash and JAM-DEX, the adoption is even lower at 0.16 and 0.11% respectively. DCash was halted briefly in 2022, a year after it was launched, following a technical issue with the HyperLedger it is built on. The ECCU said it would replace the original DCash with a version 2.0 over the next couple of years, with the initial platform closing in January this year. Users are able to redeem the Dash funds deposited in the platform.
Another cause for the low adoption identified by the Caribbean central banks was merchants not participating in CBDC networks, which were not integrated in the traditional banking system for their accounts anyway.
Banks and credit unions were slow to sign on as well to digital cash, and customers were not convinced there was any demonstrable added value over traditional cash.
Elsewhere, Nigeria, the first country in Africa to adopt a CBDC has seen similarly low adoption, a working paper by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggests.
Part of the reason for the low adoption of the eNaira is that with the current design, the Nigerian Central Bank can see all user transactions. Due to financial crimes prevention measures, it is also difficult for poorer people to gather the stringent documentation required to identify themselves for larger transactions.
Finally, Nigeria suffers from unreliable electricity supply and spotty Internet access, neither of which are conducive to CBDC adoption.
Nigeria's Central Bank is now said to be looking for a new technology provider for the eNaira CBDC, to build a more robust system that appeals to users.
In its consultation paper the RBNZ notes no advanced economy central bank has yet issued a digital form of money to the public, although many are researching or working on them. This includes the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of England, European Central Bank and Sweden’s Sverige’s Riksbank.
Danmarks Nationalbank in Denmark has also looked into creating a CBDC, but expressed doubts that it would provide any actual benefits.
"With the well-functioning financial infrastructure we have in Denmark, it is not clear how a retail CBDC in Danish kroner can contribute to better and more secure access to payments and financial services or to creating more safe and efficient solutions for citizens and society in general." the Danish reserve bank wrote.
China is exploring issuing digital money with a pilot called the e-CNY. As of June 2023, it had issued e-CNY into more than 120 million individual wallets and conducted 950 million transactions in e-CNY worth approximately 1800 billion yuan ( about US$251 billion), the RBNZ says.
Reuters also reports the e-CNY is seeing some adoption momentum. Some Android devices in China provide payments functionality even when the devices don't have Internet access, or have run out of battery. Even then, the e-CNY is a small fraction of China's cash in circulation at just 0.16%.
15 Comments
It's hardly surprising that existing CBDCs have not experienced fast adoption, primarily because they're not really what people want. Compare that to say demand for USD stablecoins in countries like Argentina and Lebanon where there is a need for people to preserve the purchasing power of their savings.
Finally, Nigeria suffers from unreliable electricity supply and spotty Internet access, neither of which are conducive to CBDC adoption.
People want to complete transactions when networks are down after cyclones or earthquakes etc. We need to maintain some access/use of cash. I’m happy for some/most people to go cash-less. Just don’t expect everyone to.
No.
BTC+ETH+SOL, which are very decentralized (using widely accepted metrics such as the Nakamoto coefficient), make up about 72% of the market cap.
Thus 'most' of the cryptocurrencies are indeed quite decentralized.
[Even if we start digging deeper into data center distribution of nodes, we are in a completely different realm to CBDCs, which are as centralized as one can get. ]
It depends. Both answers are valid when only considering certain points. From the point of view of most consumers cryptocurrency is very centralized. Think of the trading mechanisms of going to a third party wallet, trading on exchanges, storage of funds around those exchanges, the fees and impositions they can impose on consumers access to their own funds (which are rules they can make up on their own and not answerable to consumer protection divisions so the consumers voice has even less impact on policy dictated by the C levels & boards of those companies). Hence why it is so easy to run scams and steal customer funds in an exchange. The lack of consumers voice and opportunity to set the rules the exchange operates under is actually a contraction of input (even when compared to limited democracy systems).
Customers have given up the benefits of centralization but got even worse negatives and cons of centralization.
However the tech ideal was decentralized. But even then the centralization around significant processing and storage power means the tech will never truly operate under those ideal conditions. The tech will always face a risk of more centralization and the issues that can arise from it.
The methods of trading, buying and selling with the tech are already under highly centralized non democratic fascist authorities that do not need to concern themselves with the legal rights of the customers. Those authorities can buy properties in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands with customer money and close tomorrow with little concern for those same customers. So thinking a government is worse then that is funny
Sorry, but I stopped reading at 'third party wallet' and 'trading on exchanges', because while you make some valid points, what you are describing isn't really crypto.
The shift to defi began in 2020/21 and self custody is certainly where we are heading. Currently many are using centralized exchanges only as a last resort (in cases of liquidity issues or blockchain congestion). This trend will continue.
Correction Most transactions use exchanges and fintech orgs have their own. Thinking most the population who trade crypto in NZ are not using exchanges is very naive and idealistic. I am more cynical and realistic. You only need to look at the trading numbers and we can literally see transactions to know independent trading is not mainstream. Only those of us who are aware of the tech in detail have such knowledge of the primary & alternate methods of trading and most people, (esp most the public non organization traders) are lucky in a given day if they are truly aware of the trading app issues they are exposing themselves to. SBF would not have been able to commit such theft without the large pool of victims to draw from.
Secondary if you are completely unaware of the contraction of tech processing power to significantly large networks then that is a big tech info gap. Mostly those networks are for large scale attacks and the crypto markets are actually to their benefit so it is unfavourable for them to try but if you want true independence you are very far from it and many countries have potential for very large control. Is it a concern, yes it has always been right from the start and there are not good protections from that. Blockchains have and will always be susceptible, but the tech design always operated from an ideal and then tried to work out measures to deal with the fallout when it is not. In this case you are meant to not be tied to a single cryptocurrency, however each new one is also susceptible. This is entry level knowledge of blockchain systems and recent developments do not avert the risk of centralization with super large networks with even more processing power. No major country though has their major trading tied to a blockchain like bitcoin which also reduces the favourability of attacking the network. Ironically the unpopularity of Bitcoin for mainstream transactions and its favourability on the dark web actually acts to its benefit to reduce the chances of large scale attacks. Tip that scale in the other direction and it may be a good target. These attacks are much easier in smaller blockchains, reducing the need to show the hand as it were, and the proceeds can then be filtered through major blockchains, contracts etc.
Design of a Central Bank Digital Currency in a Highly Dollarized Emerging Market Economy: The Case of Cambodia
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12464
Development of Central Bank Digital Currency in the Asia-Pacific Region
https://www.japanpolicyforum.jp/economy/pt2024041523151814191.html
The relative success of Cambodia’s Bakong system highlights that central bank digital currencies can become more than just interesting experiments.
https://www.cigionline.org/articles/to-succeed-digital-financial-tech-m…
(Caveat: the Khmer-Times is a government-complaisant news medium. A pinch of salt should be taken with the following.) Cambodia’s version of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and online banking and mobile payments app, Bakong, has seen its adoption levels grow in leaps and bounds to surpass 10 million accounts. Since its introduction in 2020, Bakong has onboarded an estimated 60% of Cambodia’s population, with the regulators bracing for an extensive adoption campaign.
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501415657/cambodias-bakong-surpasses-10-mi…
What the hell?! they think forced scanning of QR codes is an improvement. Did we learn nothing about how difficult and inaccessible they were during the height of the pandemic even for just location tracking. QR codes for payment is a nightmare that never ends. Try coaching someone who has vision issues on how to scan the QR code they cannot reach or take pictures of clearly with their phone. Even coaching people with 20/20 vision (who are unable to take good phone pictures) how they do QR code scanning is a nightmare. Hence this tech is great in third world countries with poor human rights who Want to keep it that way.
Hmm might stick with eftpos here; safer, little to no fees, has regulation and legal requirements on banks (including so stolen funds have some potential of being returned) and there is less speculative manipulation & scams. You want a digital currency we practically already have one and as a bonus it can also be cash when there is a power & comms issue (which happens way too often in this country). Try to guess how many are using eftpos over digital currencies, google and apple pay combined in NZ.
Do you want to pay the extra fee tolls of constantly switching from one account, wallet & currency to the other (there is a substantial loss to the consumer which only benefits private profits)?
Secondary: Is less security, longer transaction processing times and no consumer protections really that preferable tradeoffs for very minimal minor gains?
Thirdly: do you want the contents of every purchase (not just the receiver and sender but also potentially the details as well) to be tracking data available to every org. Do you not see the potential for very negative population control and discrimination potential with such measures in malicious companies & governments with ethnicity & population scores.
Forth: Do you accept the permanent exclusion of those unbanked from every community with no option for access to essential needs and government services. (Note this will be a rising number with the removal of widespread brick and mortar banking services & an ageing population with poor health services).
A NZ CBDC would be similar to cryptocurrency
The whole point of crypto currency is to avoid any control of any bank, at all, other than transferring Fiat to Ctypo.
A NZ CBDC is nothing to do with pure Cryptocurrencies.
A government can print money until the money in your pocket is worthless.
A government can go bankrupt; making their money worthless.
A government.... you get the point....
I can transfer Ethereum around the world avoiding bank transfer fees.
Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency secured by cryptography, making it nearly impossible to counterfeit or double-spend. Most cryptocurrencies are decentralized networks based on blockchain technology—a distributed ledger enforced by a disparate network of computers. Cryptocurrencies differ from traditional fiat currencies because they are not issued by any central authority, making them theoretically immune to government interference or manipulation.
In contrast, central banks are exploring digital currencies called Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which are digital forms of fiat money. CBDCs are an antithesis to cryptocurrencies because they are centralized, government-issued, and fully regulated, aiming to merge the benefits of digital assets with the stability and regulatory oversight of traditional banking.
An economist needs to study cryptocurrency.
Hong Kong has just allowed its first ETH ETF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjCzCbo4HMs&t=9s
This is a well-researched piece on how crypto actually works, practice versus theory.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.