Tag Archives: Central bank digital currency

“Money and Banking with Reserves and CBDC,” CEPR, 2023

CEPR Discussion Paper 18444, September 2023. HTML (local copy).

Abstract:

We analyze the role of retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) and reserves when banks exert deposit market power and liquidity transformation entails externalities. Optimal monetary architecture minimizes the social costs of liquidity provision and optimal monetary policy follows modified Friedman (1969) rules. Interest rates on reserves and CBDC should differ. Calibrations robustly suggest that CBDC provides liquidity more efficiently than deposits unless the central bank must refinance banks and this is very costly. Accordingly, the optimal share of CBDC in payments tends to exceed that of deposits.

“Why the Digital Euro Might be Dead on Arrival,” VoxEU, 2023

With Cyril Monnet. VoxEU, August 10, 2023. HTML.

… promoting the digital euro requires an aggressive marketing strategy because private incentives for adoption are limited. However, the pursuit of such an aggressive approach is unlikely as this runs counter to the ECB’s fourth, implicit objective of protecting banks’ existing business model.

This is problematic and could turn the project into a significant missed opportunity, for the potential social benefits of the digital euro substantially exceed its private ones.

“Der digitale Euro könnte zur Totgeburt werden (Digital Euro, Dead on Arrival?),” NZZ, 2023

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, July 5, 2023. PDF. HTML.

Ein digitaler Euro könnte den Wettbewerb fördern, mehr Transparenz schaffen und das Too-big-to-fail-Problem entschärfen. Mit ihrer Minimalvariante aber priorisiert die EZB das Ziel der Bewahrung des Status quo im Bankensystem.

“Digital Euro: An Assessment of the First Two Progress Reports,” SUERF, 2023

SUERF Policy Brief 612, June 2023. HTML, PDF.

Executive summary:

The ECB’s first two progress reports on the digital euro clarify the project teams’ considerations. Some motivations for a digital euro remain vague, some fundamental tradeoffs receive limited attention. Most importantly, the reports lack an analysis of why digital euro holdings as stores of value are not desirable and whether strategies to limit such holdings cause collateral damage. Against that backdrop some of the design choices backed by the Governing Council appear premature.

“Digital Euro: An Assessment of the First Two Progress Reports,” European Parliament, 2023

European Parliament, April 2023. PDF.

Executive summary:

The two progress reports provide an insightful overview over some of the thinking underlying the digital euro project. The reports remain vague in some respects, which is not surprising given the early stage of the project and the division of tasks between the ECB and the Commission.

The first report suggests that the digital euro can help preserve public money as the anchor of the payment system, but it does not explain how the decline in cash use endangers the anchor role or how a digital euro would mitigate the associated risks. It motivates the digital euro as contributing to Europe’s strategic autonomy, but does not clarify whether the autonomy concerns national security, cheaper payment services, or monetary sovereignty, and why either of these would suggest a focus on consumers rather than business users. More generally, the report discusses few economic motives for a digital euro in depth and this raises doubts about the proper sequencing of design choices. Some arguments for privacy restrictions are not fully convincing. The most important shortcoming of the first report is the lack of analysis of why digital euro holdings as stores of value are not desirable (or why this issue is beyond discussion) and whether strategies to limit such holdings cause collateral damage.

The second report lacks a discussion of incentive compatibility of the envisioned public-private partnership model. It also lacks detail on the proposed settlement, funding and defunding models and on the incidence of the payment scheme’s costs.

The reports do not discuss implications for central bank balance sheets, interest rates, political interference, and the ECB’s mandate to introduce a digital euro.

My colleague Cyril Monnet also wrote a report (PDF). His executive summary:

Since Facebook’s announcement of Libra in July 2019, central banks, including the European Central Bank (ECB), have accelerated investigations on the introduction of their own retail digital currency.

This study analyses the two reports published by the ECB regarding its investigation for the introduction of a digital euro.

The digital euro can offer many advantages over existing means of payment. However, most of these benefits, as outlined in the two reports, are of a systemic and social nature, rather than being benefits for users.

A broad acceptance and usage of the digital euro requires that it brings benefits not only to consumers but also to merchants. The digital euro needs a platform business model that brings consumers but also incentivises merchants to adopt it.

In addition, considering the social benefits it brings, the ECB should design the digital euro to promote its appeal. The ECB should consider eliminating holding limits and discontinuing penalising remuneration schemes as soon as possible after its introduction. Also, the ECB should consider adding some programmability features to the digital euro.

There are also some challenges ahead.

The deployment of the digital euro by regulated intermediaries results in a conflict of interest, as the digital euro competes with a significant source of their revenue, i.e. payments. To restrict the fees charged to users of the digital euro by intermediaries, the ECB should consider implementing a transparent fee structure that may incorporate subsidies.

Also, while consumers use cash to preserve their anonymity, the digital euro will always leave a data trail. It is therefore key that the future design of the digital euro preserves at least the privacy of its users, which may require the central bank to make compromises with some other objectives.

It is not clear that distributed ledger technology (DLT) is the best way to deploy the digital euro but making it DLT compatible and programmable can foster innovations in decentralised finance.

Update, late May 2023: Christian Hofmann also wrote a report (PDF). His executive summary:

… This paper argues that the paramount reason for introducing a digital euro should lie in the imperfections of the existing money landscape that offers the public suboptimal choices for store of value and payment transactions. In that respect, the introduction of a digital euro holds great promise for the public, and this paper focuses on one of the most essential design features of a digital euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) plans to introduce a limited version of a digital euro that would cap the maximum amounts of digital euros that individuals can hold, but this paper challenges the ECB’s assumption that such caps are needed in the interest of financial stability. The concerns voiced by the ECB and other central banks about the risks from sudden outflows of liquidity from bank deposits to CBDC are realistic, but this paper argues that these risks are manageable and that a digital euro might even support financial stability in a banking crisis. Properly implemented, an unlimited digital euro would allow central banks and other authorities to wield control more effectively during bank run scenarios and improve their overall ability to manage crises situations. 

The Economist on CBDC—and SVB

The Economist refers to our work in the `Free Exchange’ section:

But some argue banks would work fine if the public switched their deposits for central-bank digital currencies, so long as the central bank stepped in to replace the lost funding. “The issuance of [such currencies] would simply render the central bank’s implicit lender-of-last-resort guarantee explicit,” wrote Markus Brunnermeier and Dirk Niepelt in 2019. This scenario seems to have partly materialised since the failure of svb, as deposits have fled small banks for money-market funds which can park cash at the Fed, while the Fed makes loans to banks.

“Finanzplatz steuert auf eine Verstaatlichung der UBS zu (Switzerland on its Way to Nationalizing UBS),” NZZ, 2023

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 22, 2023. PDF.

  • How to respond? Nationalization now rather than later? Breaking UBS up? Placing government representatives on the supervisory board?
  • Illiquidity crises and the lender of last resort.
  • Vollgeld, higher reserve requirements, and CBDC as partial solutions to TBTF problems.

Mariana: CBDCs in Automated Market Makers

Three BIS innovation hubs plan to test DeFi inspired liquidity pools to exchange wCBDCs. BIS press release:

  • Project Mariana will use DeFi protocols to automate foreign exchange markets and settlement.
  • Automated market makers can become the basis for new generation of financial infrastructure.
  • Exploration on cross-border exchange of wholesale CBDCs is the first to involve three Hub centres.

The BIS Innovation Hub is launching a new project around central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and Decentralised Finance (DeFi) protocols as part of its 2022 work programme.

Project Mariana explores automated market makers (AMM) for the cross-border exchange of hypothetical Swiss franc, euro and Singapore dollar wholesale CBDCs. It will seek to examine the potential between financial institutions to settle foreign exchange trades in financial markets.

The project involves the Eurosystem, Singapore and Switzerland BIS Innovation Hub Centres together with the Bank of France, Monetary Authority of Singapore and Swiss National Bank. The aim is to deliver a proof of concept by mid-2023.

Project Mariana uses DeFi protocols to automate foreign exchange markets and settlement, potentially improving cross-border payments (and supporting a priority of the Group of 20). Today, DeFi built on public blockchains uses smart contract protocols to automate markets for crypto and digital assets. AMM protocols combine pooled liquidity with innovative algorithms to determine the prices between two or more tokenised assets. In the future, similar AMM protocols could form the basis for a new generation of financial infrastructures facilitating the cross-border exchange of CBDCs.

“Money and Banking with Reserves and CBDC,” UniBe, 2022

UniBe Discussion Paper 22-12, October 2022. PDF.

We analyze retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) in a two-tier monetary system with bank deposit market power and externalities from liquidity transformation. Resource costs of liquidity provision determine the optimal monetary architecture and modified Friedman (1969) rules the optimal monetary policy. Optimal interest rates on reserves and CBDC differ. A calibration for the U.S. suggests a weak case for CBDC in the baseline but a much clearer case when too-big-to-fail banks, tax distortions or instrument restrictions are present. Depending on central bank choices CBDC raises U.S. bank funding costs by up to 1.5 percent of GDP.

Digital Money and Finance: What’s New?

CEPR/SUERF/CB&DC webinar with Darrell Duffie, Todd Keister, Harald Uhlig, Dirk Niepelt.

Youtube

Digitisation rapidly changes money, banking and finance. Are these changes fundamental and radical—or part of a continuous process of technological progress and efficiency improvement? Do academics have to re-think money, banking and finance—or do conventional theories apply? And do finance professionals and regulators need to re-assess their frameworks and tools to keep up with the transformation?

Darrell Duffie (Stanford University and Fintech & Digital Currencies RPN Member), Todd Keister (Rutgers University and Fintech & Digital Currencies RPN Member) and Harald Uhlig (University of Chicago, CEPR and Fintech & Digital Currencies RPN Member), three experts on macro economics, monetary economics and finance, shared their views on these and related questions. The webinar, which has been moderated by Dirk Niepelt (University of Bern, SUERF, CEPR and Fintech & Digital Currencies RPN Leader), started with brief opening remarks by each of the experts, followed by a discussion and a Q&A session.

No CBDC Act

Source

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 13, 2022

Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Braun) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to limit the ability of Federal Reserve banks to issue central bank digital currency.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “No Central Bank Digital Currency Act” or the “No CBDC Act”.

SEC. 2. CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.

Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding after the 14th undesignated paragraph (12 U.S.C. 347d) the following:

“ No Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary of the Treasury, any other agency, or any entity directed to act on behalf of the Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary, or other agency, may mint or issue a central bank digital currency directly to an individual (including central bank digital currency issued to an individual through a custodial intermediary) or a digital currency intermediary, offer related products or services directly to an individual, or maintain an account on behalf of an individual (including an account in a specially designated account at a digital currency intermediary or supervised commercial bank). No Federal reserve bank may hold digital currencies minted or issued by the United States Government as assets or liabilities on their balance sheets or use such digital currencies as part of fulfilling the requirements under section 2A.”.

Smart Banknote CBDC

Orell Füssli news release:

Orell Füssli Ltd. Security Printing and AUGENTIC GmbH announced their partnership on a “Smart Banknote CBDC” solution including trustwise.io’s Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) a week ago. A smart banknote is a physical banknote that interacts with a CBDC solution and acts as a transitional device between traditional and CBDC based payment systems. A smart banknote can be used like a classic banknote; however, the owner can redeem his cold wallet (physical banknote) and transfer the note’s value to a digital wallet by scanning the QR code with the private key. Our smart banknote includes a public and a private key represented by QR codes of which the private one is sealed. When the cover of the private key is removed, the QR code scanned, the value of the banknote can be transferred to a digital wallet. Conceptually after this procedure, the smart banknote cannot be transferred anymore.

White House on Digital Assets

An executive order dated March 9, 2022 outlines what is on the White House’s mind:

The United States has an interest in responsible financial innovation, expanding access to safe and affordable financial services, and reducing the cost of domestic and cross-border funds transfers and payments, including through the continued modernization of public payment systems.  We must take strong steps to reduce the risks that digital assets could pose to consumers, investors, and business protections; financial stability and financial system integrity; combating and preventing crime and illicit finance; national security; the ability to exercise human rights; financial inclusion and equity; and climate change and pollution. …

(d)  We must reinforce United States leadership in the global financial system and in technological and economic competitiveness, including through the responsible development of payment innovations and digital assets.  The United States has an interest in ensuring that it remains at the forefront of responsible development and design of digital assets and the technology that underpins new forms of payments and capital flows in the international financial system, particularly in setting standards that promote:  democratic values; the rule of law; privacy; the protection of consumers, investors, and businesses; and interoperability with digital platforms, legacy architecture, and international payment systems.  The United States derives significant economic and national security benefits from the central role that the United States dollar and United States financial institutions and markets play in the global financial system.  Continued United States leadership in the global financial system will sustain United States financial power and promote United States economic interests.

Fabio Panetta on the Digital Euro

In a speech, the ECB’s Fabio Panetta argues that a digital Euro is necessary because

[i]n the digital age … banknotes could lose their role as a reference value in payments, undermining the integrity of the monetary system. Central banks must therefore consider how to ensure that their money can remain a payments anchor in a digital world.

He argues that

outsourcing the provision of central bank money [to stable coin providers] … would endanger monetary sovereignty [as would the absence of a national digital currency].

Panetta also argues that a digital Euro could

  • improve the confidentiality of digital payments and
  • increase choice and reduce costs

and should

  • avoid interfering with the functioning of the financial system and
  • be available within private payment solutions.

Panetta does not discuss

  • seignorage and
  • time consistency motivations.

“Digital Finance bedroht Geld- und Währungshoheit (Digital Finance Threatens Monetary Sovereignty),” NZZ, 2022

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 17, 2022. PDF.

  • The federal council’s digital finance strategy focuses on regulation.
  • There are limits to this strategy when financial markets operate globally and virtually.
  • Preserving monetary sovereignty requires an attractive national currency.
  • Carrots, not only sticks.
  • An attractive currency is not only stable but also usable in digital form.

The FT Favors a Digital Dollar

On the question whether the Fed should seriously consider retail CBDC, the FT sides with the pro camp.

While elsewhere such central bank digital currencies can appear “a solution in search of a problem”, America’s lacklustre retail banking system and the importance of the dollar in cross-border money flows make an obvious case for reform.

Compare the contributions by Darrell Duffie and Chris Waller in the CEPR eBook.

 

Interview, Riksbank RN, 2021

Riksbank Research News 2021, December 2021. PDF (pp. 2–3), HTML.

Q: You have been leader of the CEPR Research and Policy Network on FinTech and Digital Currencies since 2021 and explored issues at the heart of monetary theory and payment systems in your research. What do you think is new about digital central bank money and what makes it different from other digital means of payment?

A: Societies have been using digital means of payment for decades. Commercial banks use digital claims against the central bank, “reserves,” to pay each other. Households and firms use digital claims against commercial banks, “deposits,” as well as claims on such deposits, as money. Financial innovations typically improved the convenience for users or helped build additional layers of claims on top of each other, fostering fractional reserve banking and raising money multipliers.

Recently, new digital instruments have appeared on the fringes of the financial system. Some think of them as currencies and others as mere database entries. These instruments exploit the fact that smart ways of managing information, and even smarter approaches to providing incentives in anonymous, decentralized networks can replicate some functions of conventional monies. Monetary theorists are not surprised. They have debated for decades to what extent money is, or is not a substitute for a large societal database. The information technology revolution has made this debate much less theoretical.

Of course, the new entrants such as Bitcoin have not been very successful so far when it comes to actually creating substitute monies. But they have been quite successful in terms of creating new assets, mostly bubbles. Bubbles are also a great mechanism for their creators to extract resources from other people.

What is new about digital central bank money for the general public (central bank digital currency, CBDC) is that households and firms would no longer be restricted to cash when they wanted to pay using a central bank (i.e., government) liability. That is, banks would lose a privilege and households and firms would gain an option. CBDC, which I like to think of as “Reserves for All,” seems natural when you consider the history of central banking. It also seems natural when you consider that many governments strongly discourage the use of cash. Nevertheless, compared with the status quo, “Reserves for All” would amount to a major structural change.

Q: What do you think are the main challenges of issuing a CBDC?

A: From a macroeconomic perspective, introducing “Reserves for All” could have major implications. The balance sheets of central banks would likely expand while commercial banks would likely lose some deposits as a source of funding. Mechanically, they would reduce their asset holdings or attract other sources of funding. The question is, which assets they would shed, and subject to which terms and conditions they would attract new funding. These are important questions because banks play a key role in the transmission of monetary policy to main street.

While many central bankers are concerned about the implications of CBDC for bank assets and funding costs academic research conveys a mixed picture. To assess the consequences of “Reserves for All” it is natural to first ask what it would take to perfectly insulate banks and the real economy from the effects of CBDC issuance. As it turns out, the answer is “not much:” Under fairly general conditions the central bank holds a lot of power and can neutralize the implications of CBDC for macroeconomic outcomes.

Of course, central banks might choose to implement other than the neutral policies. In my view, this is in fact very likely, for reasons related to the political economy of banking and central banking. On the one hand, CBDC would make it even harder for central banks to defend their independence. On the other hand, CBDC would increase the transparency of the monetary system and trigger questions about the fair distribution of seignorage. On top of this, “Reserves for All” might trigger demands for the removal of other “bank privileges:” Interest groups might request LOLR-support, arguing that they are systemically important and just temporarily short of liquidity. Others might want to engage in open market operations with the central bank.

Beyond macroeconomics and political economy, CBDC could substantially change the microeconomics of banking and finance. In the current, two-tiered system there is ample room for complementarities between financing, lending, and payments. The information technology revolution strengthens these complementarities but it also generates new risks or inefficiencies. How the connections between money and information currently change is the subject of ongoing research. I don’t think we have been able to draw robust conclusions yet as to what role CBDC would play in this respect.

Q: Should we, and will we have CBDCs in the near future?

A: Some countries have already decided in favor. Others, like the Riksbank I believe, are still on the sidelines, thinking about the issues, watching, and preparing. Yet others have only recently taken the issue more seriously, mostly because of the Libra/Diem shock in June 2019, which made it clear to everybody that the status quo ceases to be an option.

I think the normative question is still unanswered. Not only does CBDC have many consequences, which we would like to better understand. There are also the unknown consequences that we might want to prepare ourselves for. Moreover, many of the problems that CBDC could potentially address might also allow for different solutions; the fact that CBDC could work does not mean that CBDC is the best option.

In a recent CEPR eBook* several authors share that view, which suggests a case-by-case approach. CBDC might be appropriate for one country but not for another, for instance because cash use has strongly declined in Sweden and this may favor CBDC (as Martin Flodén and Björn Segendorf discuss in their chapter) while the same does not apply in the US or elsewhere.

Regarding the positive question, I think that many more countries will decide to introduce “Reserves for All,” and quite a few of them in the next five years. One reason is that it is politically difficult to wait when others are moving ahead. Another is the fear of “dollarization,” not only in countries with less developed financial markets. The strongest factor, I believe, is the fear that central banks might lose their standing in financial markets. This is connected with the important question, which the Riksbank has been asking early on, whether in the absence of CBDC declining cash circulation could undermine trust in central bank money.

Among the eBook authors, most but far from all expect that a CBDC in a developed economy would resemble deposits in terms of user experience. Almost everyone expects that private banks and service providers rather than the central bank itself would interact with end-users. I share these views. But there is disagreement as to whether digital currencies would be interest bearing and how strictly they would protect privacy. I believe that it is also unclear how strictly central banks would enforce KYC regulation or holding restrictions on foreigners. These two factors might critically affect the threats to monetary sovereignty in other countries, and as a consequence they might shape the chain reaction of adoptions.

What seems clear to me is that the implications of CBDC go far beyond the remit of central banks. Parliaments and voters therefore should have the final say.

* Dirk Niepelt (2021), editor: “CBDC: Considerations, Projects, Outlook”, CEPR eBook. Changes in the research staff

“Digitales Notenbankgeld – und nun? (CBDC—What Next?),” FuW, 2021

Finanz und Wirtschaft, December 8, 2021. PDF.

  • I draw some conclusions from the CEPR eBook on CBDC, namely:
  • Banks will change, whatever happens to CBDC.
  • The main risk of retail CBDC is not bank disintermediation.
  • CBDC may not be the best option even if it has net benefits.
  • It should be for parliaments and voters, not central banks, to decide about the introduction of CBDC.

“Reserves for All: Political Rather Than Macroeconomic Risks,” CEPR, 2021

Chapter 5 in the CEPR eBook, November 24, 2021. HTML.

From the conclusion:

From a macroeconomic perspective, central banks can largely neutralise the consequences of CBDC. What is highly uncertain, however, is whether they would choose to do so – the political risks of ‘Reserves for All’ are first-order. The decision for or against CBDC thus should not only reflect the assessment of economic trade-offs, but also whether societies are confident in their ability to efficiently manage conflicts of interest. If not, and if they fear that the introduction of CBDC could further politicise banking and central banking, then the introduction of CBDC might constitute a risky regime change. It will be interesting to see how different [countries] judge this risk.

“CBDC: Considerations, Projects, Outlook,” CEPR/VoxEU, 2021

CEPR eBook, November 24, 2021. HTML.

VoxEU, November 24, 2021. HTML.

Retail central bank digital currency has morphed from an obscure fascination of technophiles and monetary theorists into a major preoccupation of central bankers. Pilot projects abound and research on the topic has exploded as private sector initiatives such as Libra/Diem have focused policymakers’ minds and taken the status quo option off the table. In this eBook, academics and policymakers review what we know about the economic, legal, and political implications of CBDC, discuss current projects, and look ahead.

CBDC and Cross-Border Payments

The Economist reports on “The race to redefine cross-border finance:”

  • SWIFT recently launched SWIFT Go for retail payments.
  • FinTech firms often partly bypass SWIFT by aggregating payments first.
  • Ripple evades SWIFT, using a cryptocurrency for international transactions.
  • Credit card companies build infrastructure independent of SWIFT for retail (push) payments initiated by the sender.
  • JPMorgan Chase and a Singaporean bank and Temasek launched Partior for wholesale payments. This network records transfers on a permissioned blockchain.
  • CBDCs could enable banks to make overseas payments on a shared ledger.
  • SWIFT tries to collaborate with central banks.
  • Partior aims to expand, recruiting core settlement banks for both central-bank and commercial-bank digital payments in euro, renminbi and yen.

On VoxEU, Massimo Ferrari, Arnaud Mehl, Fabio Panetta, and Ine Van Robays discuss “The international dimension of central bank digital currencies: Open research questions.” They argue that research has identified three main implications of retail CBDC (with broad access):

  • ‘Dollarization’ in other countries.
  • Stronger cross-border transmission of shocks, increased exchange rate volatility and altered capital flow dynamics. “Research finds that introducing a CBDC available to non-residents ‘super charges’ uncovered interest rate parity … leads to a stronger rebalancing of global portfolios in response to shocks, and to higher exchange rate volatility.”
  • Impact on the international role of currencies.

The authors write that most models to date are unclear about what makes CBDC really different in this context. And they argue that another open question is how intensively central banks should and would cooperate. They write, somewhat optimistically, that “according to the (unwritten) code of central banking, the introduction of a CDBC in one jurisdiction must do no harm. In particular, it must not put the financial system of other jurisdictions at risk.” Let’s see.