The ECB is now arguing that a CBDC is needed in case of power and network outages. How do they say it would help? 1. The infrastructure will have multiple servers 2. The CBDC will have a dedicated app 3. The CBDC might work offline This argument is far from compelling. At the risk of shocking the ECB, let me be clear: private businesses already use dedicated apps, multiple servers, and even *gasp* back up servers. In fact, offline payments might be tricky, but they are not impossible. Recognizing the value of connecting people in times of outages or disastors, the market has introduced solutions. You don't even need an internet connection to send bitcoin anymore. If you don't know what I mean, just check out all the work @calle is doing. Yet, even then, it's simply absurd for the ECB to suggest that the central bank must intervene to introduce alternatives. As George Selgin pointed out in 2018, central banks are just as vulnerable to outages, equipment failures, and hacking as others. https://www.cato.org/blog/computer-glitch-argument-central-bank-ecash History has shown that they too fall victim to these issues. Furthermore, as George noted, there are plenty of alternatives available. You can get multiple bank accounts, fintech apps, prepaid cards, cryptocurrencies, and more. And each one of these options has its own suite of subcategories. So the idea that central bank is needed to swoop in and introduce a long-missing alternative is too little too late. Arguements like the ECB's are why "a solution in search of a problem" has become the unofficial tag line for CBDCs.
When discussing the CBDC, Belarusian central bank official Alexander Yegorov said that there were plans in place to use the CBDC to control the use of budgetary funds “where we can trace, down to the end individual, where budgetary funds were spent and ultimately reached.”
Congress has once again brought the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network before it to answer fundamental questions. And once again, FinCEN is unable to justify the Bank Secrecy Act regime. https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-arrests-were-made-fincen-director-doesnt-know The icing on the cake here is that FinCEN almost simultaneously announced it was expanding surveillance. It tried to surveil as little as $200, but the Institute for Justice took them to court. So now they are surveilling as little as $1,000 (as if that's a reasonable compromise).
In Reuters, Pierre Briancon writes that the central bank directly competing with private businesses is "a risk worth taking: a digital euro justifies knocking a few reluctant bankers’ heads." What benefit justifies incurring the risk? He never says. https://www.reuters.com/commentary/breakingviews/time-put-digital-euro-ahead-bank-interests-2025-09-10/
I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous: the idea that showing this disclosure here is actually helpful or that someone had to pay money to have this disclosure shown. image
Admittedly, I did not expect this year to include speaking before the European Parliament on debanking and CBDCs, but here I am. image