Community

I would like to comment on the last lengthy statement; while I somewhat understand the anticipated 'Big Brother' aspect of CBDCs, I don't see this as the way they would be applied in democratic countries.

Our work involves the usage of CBDCs primarily to increase efficiency of delivering funding to those most in need, starting with family remittances that continue to be subject to excessive fees. Enabling these funds to flow through CBDC accounts, to everyone who does not have a bank account, can cut the costs to zero. The funds are delivered into mobile payment accounts, or through vouchers, or - as in India with great success - to new bank accounts which offer a lead into full banking services.

In short, CBDCs can easily be limited as to the size and duration of funds held there, with all such funds convertible at par into domestic accounts of any type.

I accept the process needs to be watched  by those who remain suspicious, but the reality is, particularly during these Covid-related recessionary times, we need to cut costs, improve delivery of all forms of aid and encourage all new forms of payments, but from an integrated, secure source. 

I agree crypto-currencies are primarily for (high risk) investment, while CBDCs can establish digital transactions across the whole payment landscape.

It is a case of where will they develop first and to best use; that should be in developng countries, particularly where relatively low levels of the population have bank accounts. 

An ideal test case for such central banks is in the acceptance of remittances, which are already well-regulated but where the costs are far too high.

CBDCs can assist in bringing costs down to below the SDG 3% target, something that is urgent as the pandemic-based recession is causing such turmoil in this important area of aid.  

A vast number of important points are covered in this excellent article; I will address just one of them in an attempt to be brief.

The greatest demand at this time is to help the international remittance business, where volume is down 20% and costs remain excessive at 7% average, but 15% in some areas. If we can bring those costs down to close to zero, or at least to the 3% SDG target, we can offset some of the harm the recession is already bringing to LDCs. 

Stable coins can act as the means of payment while requiring all funds to be settled immediately into the fiat currency of their recipient. The efficiency of settlement can best be managed by central banks, but there are options where mobile networks can achieve some of the same price advantages. 

The important point, as stressed in the article, is not to add pressure on LDC currencies by having balances being held in 'rival' currencies by their citizens.       

There is a relatively simple way to answer the points raised about ensuring commercial banks do not suffer major reductions of deposits, by limiting the CBDC balance to a maximum of, say, $1,000 equivalent in local currency. This ties in with FATF recommendations on AML/ CFT, enables diasporas to pre-qualify funds for remitting to families - and is sufficient for usual levels of monthly spending. 

Where banks may suffer is in not being able to charge exorbitant rates on credit card borrowing (if better cash management becomes a habit)  and on cross border transfers - but then they should, shouldn't they??  

That is a rather odd way of dealing with helping the unbanked; it seems to direct any mugger to concentrate on a group of people who have the least to lose, but the least protection at the same time.

Credit is not necessary to access funds; take refugee camps where systems are set up for iris recognition so benefits can be settled in a cashless form, as an example. 

Far better, and less discriminatory, to enable the unbanked rather than create increased risk for them; it is also a way to help them save and perhaps build a credit score for the future, rather than lock them into an ongoing precarious state.

I think he is correct on how a Libra coin needs to be controlled, which is why most givernments will not approve of it; but the clearing structure underlying the Libra project is a different matter. If managed in conjunction with CBDCs, it can bring about a worldwide solution for many people, not least the unbanked and under-banked

As long as the fees are low, this can be an important factor in the development of the overall Libra project (for international transfers) and the linking of the Facebook product lines into a single commercial finance flow for, in particular, ecommerce. 

Let's see the detail - and get this working before the regulators try to split it all up to protect the banking cartel, never mind the value for the consumer. 

Also before giving too much further time for the Chinese to catch up on Western markets to match their homebase settlement structure. 

The  value of Libra is too high to be ignored or blocked, particularly in its role for the international transfer of small funds between family members, i.e. the $1 trillion remittance market.

The saving on that can be almost all of the $70 billion current fees and mark-up - too big to ignore and too valable for those most in need.

What needs total clarity is that the recipient governments are in control as to whether such transfers can be held in Libra, or need to be converted to the local fiat currency on arrival. We expect most such governments will insist on conversion, at least in the early stages. 

This can create a sizeable trial for Libra - and should get support from any group wanting to help in this way. But, of course, there will be strong objections from banks and payment companies, not wanting to lose out on their massive current income from this business. 

Hopefully the recipient governments will look further as to the value, rather than the blinkered view of US regulators.  

It is extraordinary how aggressive many authorities are being on Libra when it has the capability to do so much good  - 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' has seldom been so clear!

Lowering the excessive costs of international remittances is one of the key targets of last December's 152 member countries of the global compact for migration - and yet those voices are not being heard when a solution is at hand. 

Libra can act as a payment flow enabler, for the $1 trillion remittances market, bring the cost down from 7% average to less than 1%, so $60 billion added value for many of those most in need.

It is far from complicated to limit Libra's role to this functin, if governments want to block any holding of Libra balances - which is most likely in the first stage. 

It is quite probable that some eventual usage of Libra for small amounts of financial services become a factor (such as for insurance-based products), but still limiting any large-scale holding of Libra as a rival to the local fiat currencies.

Let us hope that reason - and a better understanding of the value (particularly for 1.7 billion unbanked people) - come into the discussion before it's too late.  

While it is perhaps necessary for such a review to take place, given the somewhat hysterical reaction of US legislators, let us hope that it is done to consider the good that can come from Libra's costsaving blockchain technology, as well as assessing any anti-competitive aspects.

Being able to offer financial services to the 2.4 billion Facebook users around the world - and, in particular, the 1 billion plus unbanked of them - is a major potential breakthrough. Just one facet is the $1 trillion pa remittance market, where the average costs are still around 7% (and much higher in many cases); Libra can bring this down to 1% or lower. So, $60 billion extra income for many of the poorest people - that's more than the whole US government international aid budget, to show the value.

The other Libra association members, such as PayPal and Vodafone, will offer strong competition to Calibra, the Facebook subsidiary which is an equal member with them. 

So, yes, please EU investigate the whole Libra story, but do so from a position of evalution of the good as much as of the harm.