> A CBDC does not need decentralization, and can be implemented using a side-chain similar to Liquid (without the federation). Of course, you probably don't want to leave control of the sidechain in the hands of one person or party, else they could rob an entire nation and disappear, so a multi-sig like Liquid should be used, with each elected official having a key to sign.

I agree that they don't need decentralization, but I'm wondering if the proposed protocols are the superior choice regardless, because of their effectiveness and ready for production-ness. The control over the smart contracts themselves may still be centralized while the platform they operate on are not.

> The CBDC idea is terrible anyway. The only people who want this are authoritarians who want to control how people spend, control the money supply and enrich themselves. There is no benefit to regular citizens in having a CBDC over what they can do with either bitcoin already, or can do with cash.

In my experience many citizens like using their nation's currency, and don't mind that the government has some control.

> A nation should just stick with part cash, part electronic money, but should back its currency with bitcoin and gold, and stop pissing away its value with constant credit expansion. If there's any purpose in a CBDC, it should be that the citizens of a nation can audit the central bank. I can guarantee this is not what politicians have in mind when they talk about CBDCs.

Is there a reason why the electronic money in this case couldn't be CBDCs?