Jacopo Graziuso

What is a CBDC really: definition and boundaries In public debate, CBDCs are often described as 'digital government money'. The expression is intuitive but conceptually inaccurate. Without a rigorous definition, the discussion quickly descends into misunderstanding. Clarifying the boundaries is not about taking a position, but about speaking the same language. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is, in technical terms, a central bank liability issued in digital form, accessible to different entities depending on the chosen architecture. This is the fundamental distinguishing feature. It is not a private cryptocurrency, it is not a bank deposit, it is not a simple payment application. To understand the difference, we need to distinguish between four forms of money that coexist today. 1. Cash is a liability of the central bank, anonymous, bearer-based and usable offline. 2. Bank money is a liability of commercial banks, based on credit relationships, regulated but not directly guaranteed by the central bank. 3. Reserves are liabilities of the central bank accessible only to intermediaries. 4. CBDC introduces a new combination: liabilities of the central bank, but in digital form and potentially accessible to the public. Within this general definition, there are several taxonomies, which are often confused with each other. CBDCs can be retail (intended for citizens and businesses) or wholesale (reserved for intermediaries). They can be account-based (based on the identification of the holder) or token-based (based on the possession of a digital unit). Finally, they can be direct (managed directly by the central bank) or intermediated (with commercial banks playing an operational role). These distinctions are not just technical details. Every architectural decision has different implications for privacy, resilience, governance and financial structure. This is why it is essential to distinguish between three analytical levels. 1. The technical facts, which define what a CBDC is. 2. The possible architectures, which address how it can be implemented. 3. Political interpretations concerning how it could be used. Mixing up these levels leads to two errors: naive optimism and a priori rejection. In both cases, the central point is lost: a CBDC is not a single technology, but rather a family of institutional solutions that redefine the relationship between money, the state, and its citizens. In this conceptual space, there are also systems that are not the liability of any central authority and that operate according to public, verifiable rules. Bitcoin falls into this category as both a distributed cryptoasset and a social good, not because it is 'digital', but because it structurally separates value from the issuer and transfer from authorisation. Before asking whether a CBDC is 'good' or 'bad', we need to know precisely what it is. Without clear boundaries, even judgement becomes opaque. #cbdc #technology #privacy #central #bank #digital #currency #bitcoin

The illusion of technological neutrality. We tend to view every innovation in payments as a simple technical improvement. Faster, more convenient, more efficient. It's a reassuring insight. And it is, almost always, incomplete. When a technology ceases to be an optional tool and becomes shared infrastructure, it is no longer neutral. It begins to organise behaviours, times, possibilities. Not because it 'wants' to, but because it structures. Strictly speaking, a tool is used by an individual for a specific purpose. Infrastructure, on the other hand, coordinates multiple individuals over time, establishing common constraints. A system of rules emerges when that infrastructure defines what is possible, permitted, and excluded. The transition is qualitative, not quantitative. And it does not depend on intention, but on adoption. Currency falls squarely into this category. It is not just a medium of exchange. It is an institution that organises economic relations over time. It determines how we save, how we transfer value, how we access exchange. In this sense, currency is always power organised over time: it coordinates expectations, disciplines behaviour, makes some actions easier and others more expensive or impossible. When a monetary technology changes form, it is not just 'how we pay' that changes. The boundaries of economic action change. History shows this repeatedly: the transition from metal to paper, from paper to bank credit, from credit to full digitalisation. Each leap has introduced new possibilities, but also new structural constraints. Ignoring them does not eliminate them. CBDCs sit precisely at this point of friction. They are not simply an update of payment channels. They introduce a new, potentially permanent monetary architecture that operates at the level of social infrastructure. For this reason, they cannot be evaluated solely in terms of operational efficiency or technological innovation. The central issue is neither the speed of transfer nor the reduction of costs. Rather, it is the type of system that emerges when money becomes natively digital, integrated and adjustable. This is where technological neutrality becomes irrelevant. Not by ideological choice, but by structural effect. In this context, alternative infrastructures emerge that separate rules from control, value from identity, and use from authorisation. Bitcoin was not created to replace a currency; rather, it was designed as a social asset based on verifiable, distributed rules that cannot be altered at will. It does not promise results. It sets boundaries. Every monetary infrastructure defines what is possible, even before what is legal. Over time, what is possible becomes normal. #illusion #technology #neutrality #cbdc #bitcoin #innovation #money #ideology #choise

When the code remains intact but the perspective changes. There is a misconception that reassures many: as long as the code does not change, nothing can really change. It is a convenient idea. But it is also incomplete. Because technologies do not only exist in protocols. They exist in the way they are interpreted, described and used. And above all: in the way they are made socially acceptable. Bitcoin, from this point of view, is no exception. We tend to think that technical neutrality coincides with moral neutrality. That an infrastructure, if formally correct, is also ethically unassailable. But morality does not reside in software. It resides in the social context that surrounds it. The code establishes what is possible. Culture establishes what is legitimate. Bitcoin can function perfectly even if its narrative changes radically. And this is where the real problem arises. The risk is not technical corruption. It is the ethical normalisation of foreign logics. Bitcoin was created as an infrastructure: open, verifiable, impersonal, indifferent to status. But it can be progressively portrayed as: a tool for tax optimisation, geopolitical leverage, a strategic state asset, 'responsible' infrastructure only if mediated by elites. In this shift, Bitcoin ceases to be a social good and becomes a resource to be administered. It is not banned. It is reinterpreted. The difference is subtle, but decisive. The most profound social change is this: Bitcoin has shifted from being a tool for individual autonomy to becoming infrastructure managed on behalf of individuals. When Bitcoin is primarily framed as a financial product, a complex technology for experts and a potentially dangerous tool to be monitored, The implicit message is clear: it is not for everyone; it is for those who know how to use it 'correctly'. This gives rise to a new form of delegation. Not technical, but moral. The individual is no longer responsible. They are protected. When protection replaces responsibility, freedom becomes a concession. At a geopolitical level, this change is even more evident. Bitcoin is no longer just seen as neutral infrastructure, a distributed network and a global protocol. Instead, it is now considered a lever of international pressure, a potential strategic reserve, a tool of competition between states and an object of selective regulation. In this scenario, the question is no longer whether Bitcoin should exist, but who legitimises its use. Who can safeguard it? Who can broker it? Who can claim it is 'safe'? The risk is not direct control. It is symbolic fencing. Bitcoin continues to function. Blocks are still being produced. Consensus continues to emerge. However, its social significance could be rendered meaningless. There is no need to shut it down. It is enough to render it compatible with everything it sought to distinguish itself from. The code resists. Culture does not, unless it is safeguarded. Bitcoin does not change when the software changes. It changes when we stop asking ourselves what its purpose really is. The technology survives. Responsibility only survives if it is chosen. Choose. Choose. Choose. #choose #bitcoin #responsability #software #network #change #social #function #controll #freedom #perspective #code