Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Tool for Control, Not Freedom

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represent one of the most significant developments in monetary policy in recent decades. Positioned as a modern solution to improve financial efficiency and inclusion, CBDCs are, in reality, a dangerous instrument for state control. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which operate on independent networks outside the control of any single authority, CBDCs are entirely under the direct control of central banks and governments. This distinction is crucial, as it gives governments unprecedented power over how money is created, distributed, and used.

While proponents of CBDCs claim that they will increase financial inclusion, reduce transaction costs, and make monetary policy more effective, the reality is that CBDCs would lead to the complete elimination of financial privacy and personal autonomy. Governments would have the ability to track, restrict, and manipulate financial activity with unprecedented precision. Financial independence would become impossible, and the power to participate in the economy would be conditional on compliance with government policy.

By examining the political, economic, and social implications of CBDCs, it becomes clear that their introduction is a step toward financial authoritarianism rather than progress.

⸻

What are CBDCs?

Definition and structure

CBDCs are digital versions of national currencies issued and regulated by central banks. Unlike physical cash, which allows for anonymous transactions and is independent of state oversight once issued, CBDCs exist entirely in digital form on a centralized ledger controlled by the central bank.

CBDCs are fundamentally different from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized, relying on blockchain technology to prevent any single entity from controlling the network. CBDCs, by contrast, are centralized instruments of state power. Every transaction, account, and balance is monitored and regulated by the central bank, giving the government complete oversight of the financial system.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has stated that CBDCs could provide governments with “greater control over monetary policy and financial stability” (Central Bank Digital Currencies: Financial System Implications, IMF). This is not a benign statement — greater control for governments means less freedom for citizens. The ability to control monetary policy through direct intervention in citizens’ financial activity transforms money from a neutral economic tool into a political weapon.

Key differences from cash and cryptocurrency

Unlike cash, which can be held and used anonymously, CBDCs would be fully traceable. Every transaction would leave a digital trail that the government could monitor and analyze. While cryptocurrency networks like Bitcoin are secured by decentralized consensus mechanisms, CBDCs would operate on centralized networks entirely under state control.

Cryptocurrencies are designed to operate outside government control, providing an alternative to the traditional financial system. CBDCs, however, are designed to reinforce government control, giving central banks the ability to intervene in individual financial decisions.

⸻

The illusion of financial inclusion and efficiency

The false promise of inclusion

Supporters of CBDCs argue that they will increase financial inclusion by providing banking services to people who lack access to traditional financial institutions. According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), nearly 1.7 billion adults worldwide remain unbanked (The unbanked and financial inclusion, BIS). CBDCs, proponents argue, would provide these individuals with direct access to central bank money through a digital wallet.

However, this argument ignores the fact that financial exclusion is rarely the result of a lack of infrastructure — it is more often the result of poverty, political instability, or lack of documentation. Providing a digital wallet does not resolve the underlying issues of income inequality or political disenfranchisement.

Political control disguised as inclusion

Moreover, CBDCs would give governments the power to exclude individuals from the financial system altogether. Unlike cash, which can be used freely, CBDCs are programmable. This means that central banks could impose restrictions on how money is used or even who is allowed to use it.

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, admitted in a leaked conversation that the digital euro could be designed to allow spending only on certain items and services (Project Syndicate, Lagarde). This level of control would allow governments to penalize political opposition, restrict the purchase of certain goods, or even impose spending caps on individuals based on their social or political behavior.

⸻

The end of financial privacy

Total surveillance

One of the most alarming consequences of CBDCs is the total elimination of financial privacy. Today, cash transactions provide a degree of anonymity, allowing individuals to make purchases without leaving a digital trail. CBDCs would eliminate this anonymity entirely.

Every transaction made with a CBDC would be recorded on a centralized ledger. Governments would have real-time access to detailed data on how, when, and where money is being spent. This level of surveillance would allow governments to create detailed profiles of citizens based on their spending behavior.

The Chinese model of control

In China, the rollout of the digital yuan has already demonstrated how CBDCs can be used to monitor and restrict behavior. Citizens who have criticized the government or engaged in politically sensitive activities have had their access to financial services restricted (How China’s digital currency threatens global freedom, The Economist).

The Canadian trucker protests in 2022 demonstrated how Western governments are also willing to weaponize financial systems. The Canadian government froze the bank accounts of protestors and donors, cutting them off from the financial system without due process (Canada’s trucker protests and the future of financial freedom, Financial Times). CBDCs would make such actions even easier, as governments would have direct control over every citizen’s funds.

⸻

Negative interest rates and forced spending

Punishing saving

CBDCs would give central banks the ability to impose negative interest rates directly on citizens’ savings. In a traditional banking system, imposing negative interest rates is difficult because people can withdraw cash to avoid losing value. With CBDCs, governments could eliminate this option.

The European Central Bank has already explored the possibility of using negative interest rates to “stimulate economic activity” (The future of monetary policy in a digital age, ECB). This would mean that citizens would be charged for saving money — effectively punishing responsible financial behavior.

Expiration dates and forced consumption

Even more concerning is the possibility of programmable expiration dates on CBDCs. In China, the digital yuan has already been tested with expiration dates to encourage spending (China’s digital yuan and the future of money, Bloomberg). If governments decide that increased consumer spending is necessary, they could impose expiration dates on digital currency to force citizens to spend rather than save.

⸻

Political and economic manipulation

Capital controls

During the Greek debt crisis, the European Union imposed capital controls to prevent money from leaving Greek banks (The Greek financial crisis and capital controls, BBC). CBDCs would make such measures even easier, as governments would have direct control over currency flow and citizen accounts.

Political compliance

CBDCs could be used to enforce political compliance. Governments could program CBDCs to limit spending for individuals who fail to meet certain political or social criteria. For example, citizens who refuse to comply with government health policies or environmental goals could see their financial privileges restricted (UK’s digital pound plan to promote green spending, The Guardian).

⸻

Conclusion: A step toward financial authoritarianism

CBDCs are not about financial inclusion or economic efficiency — they are about control. By eliminating cash and centralizing financial power in the hands of governments, CBDCs would give states unprecedented control over financial behavior. The ability to restrict spending, impose negative interest rates, and monitor every transaction would destroy financial independence.

CBDCs are not a technological upgrade — they are a political weapon. The promise of convenience and inclusion masks the threat of financial authoritarianism. Citizens should reject this dangerous development before financial freedom becomes a thing of the past.