The United States and Europe are at the same point on these questions. They support both a desire to accelerate regulation, particularly around bitcoins, and to issue a central bank currency. This posture is shared by all the central banks of the industrialized countries which come together around the Bank for International Settlements. It is also the institution that produces the most reports on digital currencies. However, there are still no decisions on the form that these digital currencies will take.
The central banks have all shown a desire to open up discussions on the opening of accounts at the central bank. Some small countries, notably the Eastern Caribbean States, have taken the plunge, which is easier for these countries that are still poorly banked. China, for its part, has chosen to develop a central bank currency that goes through commercial banks. Concretely, you keep your account in your current bank but a part must be deposited by the commercial bank at the central bank in order to ensure an equivalence between the account and the liabilities of the central bank. For individuals, this hardly changes anything. The downside is that the issue of anonymity is sidelined. The advantage is that we continue to go through the banks, without creating a currency that would be an alternative to the banking system. This is more intelligible to the majority of the population and it also arouses less apprehension on the part of banks.
The other problem is that the room for maneuver is left in the hands of the commercial banks. In the Chinese system, where the bank is integrated into the public system, this creates little problem. In the European system, banks are private actors, it is not the same thing. Do we want to merge central bank currencies and credit-linked bank currencies? In addition to this technical point of view, there are geopolitical issues, particularly on the circulation of currency abroad.
Who can have these accounts at the central bank? Can foreign individuals open this type of account? This is also why there is a fear that this currency will spread to other countries. When a country uses dollars, it remains relatively anonymous compared to what happens in the United States. China’s solution means that if a foreign country, for commercial or diplomatic reasons, used Chinese currencies, it would risk becoming completely dependent on China in terms of information and data. In view of the economic dependence of certain countries, this scenario cannot be ruled out at all.Â
For example, the International Monetary Fund also exists to allow countries that are in crisis to have access to monetary forms to resolve these crises. For 10 years, the multilateralism that existed in terms of monetary rescue has been disintegrating in favor of two or three central banks that will lend when the States need it. This was the role of the United States following the 2008 crisis, and this is what China is doing today. This phenomenon reveals the regionalization of the role of lender, with a system of currency wars and a singularization of the role of last resort.
It is therefore possible to see that beyond the technical questions, the international stakes of the circulation of currencies and geopolitics are enormous. However, the crypto trend continues to move in a positive direction, along with the emergence of crypto-currency user communities that aim to facilitate all members to achieve maximum profit from every cryptocurrency they buy. One of the most famous is Meta Profit.