Hacker News Reader

> they want national accounts (i.e. wallets) and using crypto/blockchain/whatever as justification

Bingo. Central bankers have wanted direct access to consumers for decades. Policy makers resisted. Cryptocurrencies are a political tool for disabling that opposition.

You are maybe the only person I've seen write about Cbdcs who sees in it what I do.

It's a policy tool, not a technology. They could set up a cbdc with minim effort technologically. The problem would be getting the congressional approval to use it the way they want to use it.

Wish I could upvote this post more times.

I don't know yet how the crypto world could change my life, but people are so convinced to invest 1.5B dollars. Either they are very smart or I'm very stupid.

Theranos was valued at $10B, with somewhere in the region of $1.5B invested. It was also entirely fraudulent, with explanations of their science that made no sense.

The amount being invested does not translate into any bearing on reality.

That guy sent a rocket to space and had it land itself so...

Being able to hire experts in one field doesn’t make you omni-competent. There’s a long history of famously successful people embarrassing themselves once they get out of their area of expertise, and in this case you’re also talking about someone who is rich enough to run with a whim because he won’t suffer any real consequences if his gamble doesn’t pay off.

It does probably mean they aren't an idiot though.

Again, history is full of counterexamples. Not everyone who is a rich business owner is especially intelligent but, far more typically, there is a huge difference between being unable to critically consider an idea and unwilling to do so. This can actually be worse for highly-accomplished people if they start believing their own PR and don't have people around who are comfortable challenging them.

> TL;DR - money is already digital, what central banks really want is centralized accounts that they can helicopter money into

That is not a matter of centralised accounts, but policy. Central banks could just as well have mailed a check, but they are simply not allowed to.

> The reason being that Central Banks have unleashed interventions that 20 years ago were unfathomable. And yet, deflation is everywhere and money velocity barely has a pulse

Because they are tasked with monetary stability, and they used the only interventions they were allowed to. And that was challenged at court. It would have been the governments job to drive the economy up, because quite evidently, it was not a lack of credit-lines which staled it. But up until recently there was no political will to do so.

I think it's a mix of the two. I think the reason that they want the cbdc as opposed to mailing checks is that it creates a permant channel that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis.

> that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis.

Sorry, I don't see how that could be the case: Either you need congressional approval, or you don't.

And how is the technical implementation of money transfer going to have an impact on that?

If every person has an "digital currency wallet" held at their normal bank as a pass through to the fed already, and let's say congress passes a bill pre-approving them to do a certain amount of stimulative distributions, they basically have a blank check. There would be no further approval needed for those distributions. It's even possible they would ask for this to be uncapped, essentially opening a new facility.

I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks. What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it.

> If every person has an "digital currency wallet"...

Nothing that follows in this paragraph depends on the pre-condition of having a digital currency wallet.

> I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks.

That may be, but I find it hard to judge. I am skeptical if the decision to shell out a couple of billions depends on physical checks or not. You could also argue the reverse, a check works better for advertisement for the governing party. People get something physical that is worth something.

> What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it.

There are other use-cases. Direct depositing stimulative is one possibility, but from my point-of-view hardly a game-changer. Direct withdrawal/devaluation on the other hand...

The main motivation I see though is more to compete with PayPal/Visa/MasterCard/Apple Pay/Google Pay..., and all the classic banks. The motivation is not to lose relevance, and if designed correctly, I can opt out of monetising my buyers history & private information.

> TL;DR - money is already digital, what central banks really want is centralized accounts that they can helicopter money into

I don't think it's the main motive, the central bank could send money directly on my bank account if they felt like it.

As I said previously :

> Digital currencies allow for full tracking of every transactions and are a privacy nightmare.

> They allow applying negative interest rate on everybody and they would facilitate neverending hyperinflation (no need to print new bills at great expense).

> Hence they can't coexist with cash so say goodbye to cash.

> I don't like where we're going.

I belive this to be incorrect. How could the fed send money directly to your account currently?

Whats stops them from doing a wire transfer ?

Their charter.