![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
.
Hello, first thank for whoever started this article. Very much needed! May I suggest if there is any prominent reason why this has been titled "Digital Fiat currency"? It seems like the concept has been baptized "central bank digital currency" by most central banks (cf references) so the later terminology would be in my view the more appropriate one. I'll proceed to the change unless major disagreements appear in the coming 2 weeks. Stanjourdan ( talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
1. There is a significant overlap between CBDC and DFC. Most of the literature on CBDC referenced in the article defines CBDC very closely with your own definition of DFC (legal tender, equivalent to physical cash, part of m0, liability of CB). Whether people can have an account at the CB is an optional feature in my opinion.
2. As far as I know, talks about bitcoin-like schemes issued by central banks are fringe and usually not described as "CBDC“.
3. DFC seems in fact to be a specific CBDC proposal, which itself is a sub-category of digital currency. We could of course create different articles for both concepts, but given the large and fast-growing literature on CBDC, wikipedia still should have a page on CBDC., while DFC seems to be pretty much a niche, lower-priority topic. It makes more sense to prioritize the development of the CBDC entry.
4. I think we should acknowledge that this whole topic is still very much emerging and fast-changing. Terminologies and concept definitions are therefore not yet 100% clear neither set in stone. In the midst of this uncertainty, I would suggest adopting an open approach by keeping the current page on CBDC as main umbrella page for all kind of legal tender digital currencies issued by central banks.
Moving forward, I would suggest improving the article in this way:
I hope this helps?! happy new year btw Stanjourdan ( talk) 10:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider changing this sentence from the article (second paragraph under Characteristics header): "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).” I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing that sentence to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is. [1] Also, what do you think about adding the acronym (DFC) after first reference of digital fiat currency and then using DFC on all additional references?
Lastly, I am fine with this article content living under the Central Bank Digital Currency umbrella as you've proposed. We do plan to submit a redirect request so that a Digital Fiat Currency article exists. I'll submit that request, but wanted to mention it. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this edit and for your additions to this article. Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I love this suggestion as the title for CBDC is often referred to as Central Bank Digital Dollars, Central Bank Digital Cash, Central Bank Digital Fiat, Fiat Digital Dollars and it therefore makes sense to include them Gabrielabed ( talk) 10:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Stanjourdan and @Justin Goldsborough - thank you for maintaining this page and upkeeping it. I believe there is an important distinction that should be made. CBDC is not possible without the double spend problem being solved. It was not possible prior to distributed ledger technology and you have older examples like Canada's mintchip which was proposing a digital currency but failed due to poor implementation design of the double spend issue. Gabrielabed ( talk) 11:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
NOTE: I am proposing this edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines. Hopefully this additional information will help clarify the relationship between Digital Fiat Currency and the Central Bank.
Would you consider changing the sentence: "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).”? I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing it to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is." [2] Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Statements regarding whether or not cryptocurrencies are liabilities is a determination which should involve the input of many editors, not just you and I. I suggest that this topic requires further discussions before a change can be made. Regards, Spintendo 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: Thanks for your response. Would you recommend a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to involve additional editors? Or a different approach? Also, in an attempt to build on this discussion, including two other sources below that claim digital fiat currency is a liability of the central bank. Appreciate your thoughts on next steps.
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (page 3, first paragraph under Taxonomy): [1]
Coindesk (5th paragraph in the Digital Currency Attributes section): [2]
Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Should digital fiat currency be defined as a liability of the central bank? See sources above.
DISCLOSURE: I proposed the original edit March 2 for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 07:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC). Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 17:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
References
References
NOTE: I am proposing this edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
On March 2, 2018 I proposed the following edit request...Would you consider changing the sentence: "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).”? I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing it to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is."
Below are two sources that back this argument that digital fiat money is a liability of the Central Bank. Also, per the rfc above, multiple editors have agreed that digital fiat money is a liability of the Central Bank and have asked that the edit be made to the article. But the edit has still not been made. Based on the points made sources provided and the editor consensus in the rfc, would you please go ahead and make the proposed edit?
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (page 3, first paragraph under Taxonomy): [1]
Coindesk (5th paragraph in the Digital Currency Attributes section): [2]
Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
The consensus of that RfC was that "the article should state that CBDC is a central bank liability, but the issue of how this should be implemented was not discussed."
(If this is not the RfC you're referring to, please state otherwise.) Owing to that consensus, which seems at odds with your request, and to the lack of agreement on wording with respect to how it should be mentioned, I don't see how this is an actionable edit request.
spintendo
22:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
One can argue it is not possible to have a CBDC without distributed ledger technology. If you look at all previous examples prior to Bitt.com's concept of a DLT based CBDC, then you would notice they all failed due to issues around security, double spend and deployment. Gabrielabed ( talk) 11:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence is not exact anymore: For example, commercial banks practice fractional reserve banking while CBDCs are fully reserved.
I replace it with the following sentence:
Indeed, in the last century, commercial banks have created money thanks the deposits and other ways. They have used 2 methods: fractional reserve banking and zero reserve.
Zero reserve: today commercial banks in some countries (US, UK, EU, etc) don't need a reserve requirement anymore [1][2] [3] [4] . Indeed every time a subject (a person, a corporation, etc) asks for a loan, and that subject offers a loan guarantee (a private property like a car, a building, etc) the bank creates temporarily a new deposit (money), lends these money to him, and when the borrower pays off the loan plus the interests the initial deposit is deleted, and the bank keeps the interests.
CBDCs are fully reserved, so if a person want this form of money, he just buys it from the central bank. In this case commercial banks don't create debt, or new money, and don't earn any interests.
Sources.
1)Reserve Requirements.
As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
2) Can banks individually create money out of nothing? The theories and the empirical evidence.
This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070
In his Theory of Credit Macleod (1891) put it this way:
“A bank is therefore not an office for “borrowing” and “lending” money, but it is a Manufactory of Credit.”
Macleod (1891: II/2, 594)
According to the credit creation theory then, banks create credit in the form of what bankers call ‘deposits’, and this credit is money.
But how much credit can they create?
Wicksell (1907) described a credit-based economy in the Economic Journal, arguing that
“The banks in their lending business are not only not limited by their own capital; they are not, at least not immediately, limited by any capital whatever; by concentrating in their hands almost all payments, they themselves create the money required….”
“In a pure system of credit, where all payments were made by transference in the bank-books, the banks would be able to grant at any moment any amount of loans at any, however diminutive, rate of interest.”
3)Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans.
Banks in the Real World.
In today’s modern economy most money takes the form of deposits, but rather than being created by a group of savers entrusting the bank withholding their money, deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e., create new loans). As Joseph Schumpeter once wrote, “It is much more realistic to say that the banks 'create credit,' that is, that they create deposits in their act of lending than to say that they lend the deposits that have been entrusted to them.” https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp
4)The truth is out: money is just an IOU (bank account), and the banks are rolling in it
To quote from its own (Bank of England) initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits (bank account)" ...
"In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know (fractional reserve) is not just wrong, it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU (I own you=bank account)....
There's really no limit on how much (money and loans) banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
5)German Central Bank Admits that Credit is Created Out of Thin Air.
Most people think that banks lend solely from their base of deposits. Some also know that with fractional reserve banking, they can loan out many times more than they actually have in reserves.
But very few people (with the exception of those in the banking industry and financial experts) know where credit really comes from.
(1) Each private bank "creates" loans out of thin air by entering into binding loan commitments with borrowers (of course, corresponding liabilities are created on their books at the same time. But see below); then
(2) If the bank doesn't have the required level of reserves, it simply borrows them after the fact from the central bank (or from another bank);
(3) The central bank, in turn, creates the money which it lends to the private banks out of thin air.
It's not just Bernanke ... the central banks and their owners - the private commercial banks - have been running the printing presses for hundreds of years.
Of course, as I pointed out Tuesday, Bernanke is pushing to eliminate all reserve requirements in the U.S. If Bernanke has his way, American banks won't even have to borrow from the Fed or other banks after the fact to have reserves. Instead, they can just enter into as many loans as they want and create endless money out of thin air (within Basel I and Basel II's capital requirements - but since governments are backstopping their giant banks by overtly and covertly throwing bailout money, guarantees and various insider opportunities at them, capital requirements are somewhat meaningless).
The system is no longer based on assets (and remember that the giant banks have repeatedly become insolvent) It is based on creating new debts, and then backfilling from there.
6)how is money created.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/how-is-money-created
After carefully going through the topics, it has come to my attention that there are few instances of an active and functioning CBDC example. Moreover, there is also content claiming that a CBCD does not need blockchain/DLT technology, however, there are examples of instances where the blockchain technology works to improve current services ie: "using a blockchain for digital asset management allowed NBC and Soramitsu to implement fiat-backed digital representations of the Khmer riel and US dollar that would be accessible for wholesale interbank transactions as well as everyday retail payments." from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/cambodias-digital-currency-ishowing-other-central-banks-the-way/
Metaxolotl ( talk) 09:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about currency here. This is just fiat in newspeak and doesnt need its own article. See Notepad article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.181.52 ( talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Notepad_(disambiguation) 217.87.181.52 ( talk) 20:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BL33701 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Kaisery ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Newsweek has a strongly worded critique of using a CBDC system: https://www.newsweek.com/cbdcs-will-end-american-freedom-opinion-1673676 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1DEF:F379:3CE0:B974 ( talk) 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
While I don't expect an explanation of mining in this article, there should be more about it than the one glancing use of the term. In particular, it has been claimed that CBDCs can be created without mining. Since mining is very intensive of computer use, it is considered a significant driver of global warming. Thus, this non-mining character would be a positive factor for CBDCs. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1DEF:F379:3CE0:B974 ( talk) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Given its centralized structure, a CBDC may or may not amplify the destruction of certain catastrophic events such as very large natural disasters or sophisticated nation-state cyberattacks. The fragmented nature of most nations’ current systems tends to confine damage to smaller chunks of an economy. I expect this is part of central banks’ planning; this article should address this as reliable sources become available. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Cdbc has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Cdbc until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
.
Hello, first thank for whoever started this article. Very much needed! May I suggest if there is any prominent reason why this has been titled "Digital Fiat currency"? It seems like the concept has been baptized "central bank digital currency" by most central banks (cf references) so the later terminology would be in my view the more appropriate one. I'll proceed to the change unless major disagreements appear in the coming 2 weeks. Stanjourdan ( talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
1. There is a significant overlap between CBDC and DFC. Most of the literature on CBDC referenced in the article defines CBDC very closely with your own definition of DFC (legal tender, equivalent to physical cash, part of m0, liability of CB). Whether people can have an account at the CB is an optional feature in my opinion.
2. As far as I know, talks about bitcoin-like schemes issued by central banks are fringe and usually not described as "CBDC“.
3. DFC seems in fact to be a specific CBDC proposal, which itself is a sub-category of digital currency. We could of course create different articles for both concepts, but given the large and fast-growing literature on CBDC, wikipedia still should have a page on CBDC., while DFC seems to be pretty much a niche, lower-priority topic. It makes more sense to prioritize the development of the CBDC entry.
4. I think we should acknowledge that this whole topic is still very much emerging and fast-changing. Terminologies and concept definitions are therefore not yet 100% clear neither set in stone. In the midst of this uncertainty, I would suggest adopting an open approach by keeping the current page on CBDC as main umbrella page for all kind of legal tender digital currencies issued by central banks.
Moving forward, I would suggest improving the article in this way:
I hope this helps?! happy new year btw Stanjourdan ( talk) 10:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider changing this sentence from the article (second paragraph under Characteristics header): "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).” I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing that sentence to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is. [1] Also, what do you think about adding the acronym (DFC) after first reference of digital fiat currency and then using DFC on all additional references?
Lastly, I am fine with this article content living under the Central Bank Digital Currency umbrella as you've proposed. We do plan to submit a redirect request so that a Digital Fiat Currency article exists. I'll submit that request, but wanted to mention it. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this edit and for your additions to this article. Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I love this suggestion as the title for CBDC is often referred to as Central Bank Digital Dollars, Central Bank Digital Cash, Central Bank Digital Fiat, Fiat Digital Dollars and it therefore makes sense to include them Gabrielabed ( talk) 10:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Stanjourdan and @Justin Goldsborough - thank you for maintaining this page and upkeeping it. I believe there is an important distinction that should be made. CBDC is not possible without the double spend problem being solved. It was not possible prior to distributed ledger technology and you have older examples like Canada's mintchip which was proposing a digital currency but failed due to poor implementation design of the double spend issue. Gabrielabed ( talk) 11:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
NOTE: I am proposing this edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines. Hopefully this additional information will help clarify the relationship between Digital Fiat Currency and the Central Bank.
Would you consider changing the sentence: "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).”? I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing it to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is." [2] Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Statements regarding whether or not cryptocurrencies are liabilities is a determination which should involve the input of many editors, not just you and I. I suggest that this topic requires further discussions before a change can be made. Regards, Spintendo 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: Thanks for your response. Would you recommend a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to involve additional editors? Or a different approach? Also, in an attempt to build on this discussion, including two other sources below that claim digital fiat currency is a liability of the central bank. Appreciate your thoughts on next steps.
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (page 3, first paragraph under Taxonomy): [1]
Coindesk (5th paragraph in the Digital Currency Attributes section): [2]
Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Should digital fiat currency be defined as a liability of the central bank? See sources above.
DISCLOSURE: I proposed the original edit March 2 for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 07:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC). Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 17:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
References
References
NOTE: I am proposing this edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of eCurrency. I am a paid editor for various brands and am aware of the COI guidelines.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
On March 2, 2018 I proposed the following edit request...Would you consider changing the sentence: "As such, digital fiat money cannot be considered as a liability of the central bank (it is similar to outside money).”? I believe the opposite is actually true and propose changing it to read as follows: "As such, DFC is a liability of the central bank just as physical currency is."
Below are two sources that back this argument that digital fiat money is a liability of the Central Bank. Also, per the rfc above, multiple editors have agreed that digital fiat money is a liability of the Central Bank and have asked that the edit be made to the article. But the edit has still not been made. Based on the points made sources provided and the editor consensus in the rfc, would you please go ahead and make the proposed edit?
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (page 3, first paragraph under Taxonomy): [1]
Coindesk (5th paragraph in the Digital Currency Attributes section): [2]
Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
The consensus of that RfC was that "the article should state that CBDC is a central bank liability, but the issue of how this should be implemented was not discussed."
(If this is not the RfC you're referring to, please state otherwise.) Owing to that consensus, which seems at odds with your request, and to the lack of agreement on wording with respect to how it should be mentioned, I don't see how this is an actionable edit request.
spintendo
22:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
One can argue it is not possible to have a CBDC without distributed ledger technology. If you look at all previous examples prior to Bitt.com's concept of a DLT based CBDC, then you would notice they all failed due to issues around security, double spend and deployment. Gabrielabed ( talk) 11:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence is not exact anymore: For example, commercial banks practice fractional reserve banking while CBDCs are fully reserved.
I replace it with the following sentence:
Indeed, in the last century, commercial banks have created money thanks the deposits and other ways. They have used 2 methods: fractional reserve banking and zero reserve.
Zero reserve: today commercial banks in some countries (US, UK, EU, etc) don't need a reserve requirement anymore [1][2] [3] [4] . Indeed every time a subject (a person, a corporation, etc) asks for a loan, and that subject offers a loan guarantee (a private property like a car, a building, etc) the bank creates temporarily a new deposit (money), lends these money to him, and when the borrower pays off the loan plus the interests the initial deposit is deleted, and the bank keeps the interests.
CBDCs are fully reserved, so if a person want this form of money, he just buys it from the central bank. In this case commercial banks don't create debt, or new money, and don't earn any interests.
Sources.
1)Reserve Requirements.
As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
2) Can banks individually create money out of nothing? The theories and the empirical evidence.
This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070
In his Theory of Credit Macleod (1891) put it this way:
“A bank is therefore not an office for “borrowing” and “lending” money, but it is a Manufactory of Credit.”
Macleod (1891: II/2, 594)
According to the credit creation theory then, banks create credit in the form of what bankers call ‘deposits’, and this credit is money.
But how much credit can they create?
Wicksell (1907) described a credit-based economy in the Economic Journal, arguing that
“The banks in their lending business are not only not limited by their own capital; they are not, at least not immediately, limited by any capital whatever; by concentrating in their hands almost all payments, they themselves create the money required….”
“In a pure system of credit, where all payments were made by transference in the bank-books, the banks would be able to grant at any moment any amount of loans at any, however diminutive, rate of interest.”
3)Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans.
Banks in the Real World.
In today’s modern economy most money takes the form of deposits, but rather than being created by a group of savers entrusting the bank withholding their money, deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e., create new loans). As Joseph Schumpeter once wrote, “It is much more realistic to say that the banks 'create credit,' that is, that they create deposits in their act of lending than to say that they lend the deposits that have been entrusted to them.” https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp
4)The truth is out: money is just an IOU (bank account), and the banks are rolling in it
To quote from its own (Bank of England) initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits (bank account)" ...
"In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know (fractional reserve) is not just wrong, it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU (I own you=bank account)....
There's really no limit on how much (money and loans) banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
5)German Central Bank Admits that Credit is Created Out of Thin Air.
Most people think that banks lend solely from their base of deposits. Some also know that with fractional reserve banking, they can loan out many times more than they actually have in reserves.
But very few people (with the exception of those in the banking industry and financial experts) know where credit really comes from.
(1) Each private bank "creates" loans out of thin air by entering into binding loan commitments with borrowers (of course, corresponding liabilities are created on their books at the same time. But see below); then
(2) If the bank doesn't have the required level of reserves, it simply borrows them after the fact from the central bank (or from another bank);
(3) The central bank, in turn, creates the money which it lends to the private banks out of thin air.
It's not just Bernanke ... the central banks and their owners - the private commercial banks - have been running the printing presses for hundreds of years.
Of course, as I pointed out Tuesday, Bernanke is pushing to eliminate all reserve requirements in the U.S. If Bernanke has his way, American banks won't even have to borrow from the Fed or other banks after the fact to have reserves. Instead, they can just enter into as many loans as they want and create endless money out of thin air (within Basel I and Basel II's capital requirements - but since governments are backstopping their giant banks by overtly and covertly throwing bailout money, guarantees and various insider opportunities at them, capital requirements are somewhat meaningless).
The system is no longer based on assets (and remember that the giant banks have repeatedly become insolvent) It is based on creating new debts, and then backfilling from there.
6)how is money created.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/how-is-money-created
After carefully going through the topics, it has come to my attention that there are few instances of an active and functioning CBDC example. Moreover, there is also content claiming that a CBCD does not need blockchain/DLT technology, however, there are examples of instances where the blockchain technology works to improve current services ie: "using a blockchain for digital asset management allowed NBC and Soramitsu to implement fiat-backed digital representations of the Khmer riel and US dollar that would be accessible for wholesale interbank transactions as well as everyday retail payments." from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/cambodias-digital-currency-ishowing-other-central-banks-the-way/
Metaxolotl ( talk) 09:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about currency here. This is just fiat in newspeak and doesnt need its own article. See Notepad article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.181.52 ( talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Notepad_(disambiguation) 217.87.181.52 ( talk) 20:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BL33701 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Kaisery ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Newsweek has a strongly worded critique of using a CBDC system: https://www.newsweek.com/cbdcs-will-end-american-freedom-opinion-1673676 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1DEF:F379:3CE0:B974 ( talk) 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
While I don't expect an explanation of mining in this article, there should be more about it than the one glancing use of the term. In particular, it has been claimed that CBDCs can be created without mining. Since mining is very intensive of computer use, it is considered a significant driver of global warming. Thus, this non-mining character would be a positive factor for CBDCs. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1DEF:F379:3CE0:B974 ( talk) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Given its centralized structure, a CBDC may or may not amplify the destruction of certain catastrophic events such as very large natural disasters or sophisticated nation-state cyberattacks. The fragmented nature of most nations’ current systems tends to confine damage to smaller chunks of an economy. I expect this is part of central banks’ planning; this article should address this as reliable sources become available. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Cdbc has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Cdbc until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)