A central bank digital currency (CBDC) appeals to a small segment of policymakers, and financial sector stakeholders who see it as a means to restructure the financial system, in order to better position themselves, enhance transaction efficiency, and strengthen monetary policy effectiveness. Proponents argue that a CBDC could provide a secure, state-backed digital currency that reduces the costs associated with money production, distribution, and transaction fees, making financial services more accessible and faster. They also believe that CBDCs could combat financial crimes and improve the traceability of funds. To promote the adoption of a CBDC, supporters are likely to engage in extensive public and regulatory advocacy, highlighting the potential benefits of enhanced financial inclusion and the digital currency’s role in fostering a more resilient and transparent financial system.
A false flag scenario
A false flag cyber attack, in which a malicious event is deceptively attributed to a fictitious source, could be strategically utilised to advocate for the adoption of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). By orchestrating or allowing a high-profile cyber attack on existing financial infrastructures and then misleadingly blaming it on the vulnerabilities of conventional banking systems or external threats, proponents of a CBDC could manipulate public perception and regulatory perspectives. The aftermath of such an attack could be portrayed as evidence of the need for a more secure, robust digital financial system directly managed by the central bank. Advocates might argue that a CBDC, with its advanced cryptographic protections and centralised oversight, offers superior security features that can shield the economy from similar cyber threats in the future. This scenario would create a climate of heightened security concern, potentially accelerating the push towards the adoption of a CBDC as a safer alternative to the existing financial system.
Why a CBDC could be disastrous
The move to a central bank digital currency (CBDC) presents a number of concerns that challenge the principles of privacy, financial autonomy, and economic stability. One of the most pressing issues is the potential for increased surveillance and control over individuals’ financial transactions, enabling central banks to monitor and potentially regulate all aspects of financial and even social life more directly. This could lead to a significant reduction in personal privacy and increase the risk of data breaches or misuse of personal financial information. Additionally, CBDCs could disrupt the existing financial ecosystem, posing risks to the stability of commercial banks by encouraging disintermediation, where depositors might prefer the safety of central bank digital currencies over traditional bank deposits, potentially destabilising commercial banks. Furthermore, the digital nature of CBDCs excludes those without access to digital infrastructure, exacerbating financial inequality. These concerns highlight the complex balance between innovation in financial systems and the protection of fundamental values like privacy, autonomy, and systemic stability.
Combined with a Social Credit System
Combining a central bank digital currency (CBDC) system with a ‘social credit’ system could centralise immense power in the hands of a few, potentially altering the fundamental dynamics of personal freedom and privacy. In such a system, financial transactions and social behaviours are continuously monitored and evaluated, directly influencing individuals’ economic capabilities and social privileges based on their conformity to prescribed norms and rules. This amalgamation would enable authorities to control access to financial services, such as loans and payments, based on a person’s social credit score, which could include factors like purchasing behaviour, social interactions, and political compliance. Such a centralised oversight mechanism could suppress dissent, enforce conformity, and significantly limit personal freedoms by making everyday necessities contingent on government-approved behaviour. This degree of control not only magnifies the power of those at the top of the system but also fundamentally alters the relationship between the state and its citizens, embedding coercive power deeply within the ostensibly neutral mechanisms of economic transactions.
In the case of a global government
In the hypothetical scenario of a global government, the implementation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) combined with a Social Credit System could consolidate unprecedented power in the hands of a select few individuals at the helm. This system would effectively integrate financial control with behavioural surveillance, allowing these leaders to regulate both economic transactions and social conduct on a global scale. With the ability to monitor and influence purchasing behaviours, savings, investments, and even interpersonal interactions, the few in control could dictate the economic opportunities and social mobility of individuals based on their adherence to globally defined norms and values. Such a system not only centralises economic and social governance but also has the potential to enforce a uniform standard of behaviour worldwide, marginalising dissent and rewarding compliance. This fusion of financial and behavioural control could result in a powerful mechanism for social engineering, governed by an elite few, that shapes the fabric of global society in profound and possibly irreversible ways.
Concluding
As societies are pushed towards becoming cashless, serious concerns are mounting about the potential implications for personal autonomy and privacy. The shift away from physical currency eliminates the anonymity of cash transactions, allowing every purchase to be tracked and analysed. This creates an environment where consumer behaviour can be heavily monitored, potentially leading to misuse of personal data and increased vulnerability to cyber threats. Additionally, a cashless society could marginalise those without access to digital banking facilities, including the elderly, low-income individuals, and people in rural areas, exacerbating socioeconomic disparities. Furthermore, the dependence on digital payment systems places significant control in the hands of a few major financial service providers and regulatory bodies, potentially leading to abuses of power and a reduction in personal freedom.
People are increasingly wary that without the option to use cash, their ability to manage their finances independently and resist unwarranted scrutiny could be significantly compromised.