This is programmable money where the government controls how and when you can spend it. It does not take long for most people to figure out how this restricts their freedom. I guess they will make it a bargain in some way such as charging a higher rate for cash as they are doing here. This may be a training ground for other governments to learn how to force or incentivize us to use their CBDC's.
Programmable money is like programmable computation, there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil. If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
> The Payment Choice Act is a bill that would require applicable retail businesses to accept cash for transactions of less than $2,000 and prohibit them from charging cash-paying customers a higher price relative to customers not paying with cash. Retail businesses would retain the flexibility to accept payments through any other means. The House Financial Services Committee passed the bill 32-17 on 18 May 2022.
> there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil.
Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government, in particular, never one which collects taxes directly from the people.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
Well.. precisely. At this point, though.. what incentive to the population is there for a central government "programmable" token of value?
> Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government
I don't understand this sentence.
In political discourse, "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament. If the people can't control the currency through parliament and government, how do you stop private or foreign interests from taking control?
My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
> "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament.
Is a free press in the hands of the people? Is it controlled by a parliament? The right to it may be recognized there, but I think it makes the definition a bit broader than your casting.
> My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
It's only necessarily when the government refuses to take action against monopolies and cartels. This is a rather cynical take, though it may currently ring true in our modern environment.
What an insane takeaway. "The hands of the people" could not possibly be clearer. To equate that with essentially "the government" shows how incredibly effective the state's propaganda mills are on people such as yourself.
Also, why are the "strongest and richest" objectionable to you, but not the government? That statement describes the government perfectly, and the main thing that distinguishes them from individuals who are privately wealthy is holding a monopoly on violence that's used to forcibly extract wealth while producing nothing in return.
* Logistics: if you have poor infrastructure and remote communities, you eventually have to send armoured trucks full of notes and coins to replenish those lost to attrition or external trade. It seems a bit easier and less risky just to let people query the central bank from a satellite-based hotspot.
* Universal access: Modern payment systems tend to be for the (relatively) well-off. Commercial banks aren't going to be interested in handing out debit cards and maintaining accounts for people with an average balance of only a few dollar-equivalents. A state program can afford to operate at a loss (and may actually deliver cost savings if it can be used as a cheap way to disburse subsidy or welfare payments)
Historical incentives have often been closer to stick than carrot. One scenario could be a change in the definition of legal tender, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOuiWIID2vo. If there is sufficient awareness voiced by the general population, elected representatives could have the political capital to push back against those lobbying for new powers in a post-CBDC economy.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors
The 'must' in the second part is more of something that you'd like governments to do, but not something that they in any way 'have' to do. I see vanishingly small chance of any government ever doing so because it would defeat the entire purpose of the central in CBDC.
China was the leader in the push to pure cashless society. Cash still works, but only in small amounts.
Lots of HNews'ers claim cash is the only way to keep your freedoms, but that simply glosses over the fact that even if you have piles of cash under your bed, you can't do anything meaningful if the government decides to prevent/limit banks from accepting cash deposits - say in a 5 year timeframe.
After a while, businesses will simply stop accepting cash.
>After a while, businesses will simply stop accepting cash.
So when you loose you smartphone/cards you cant buy another one, open your car, pay for a taxi or even sleep in a hotel because there is no chance to go home?
Switzerland had 3 complete blackouts (1-2 month ago) for paying digital. So the sellers had to make list (and hope you come back later to pay it.). If your country just accept digital, you trust fully on digital infrastructure...i think we all know what a good idea that is.
Numerous places regularly have rolling blackouts now when power consumption is too high. And then there are the extended, involuntary blackouts that happen several times a year around the country due to hurricanes/blizzards ect. 100% Digital currency is never going to work in practice, now matter how badly authoritarian governments want to implement it.
I don't hear people saying cash protects freedom, but is does protect privacy. Can it be taken away, yes of course, if people don't care about privacy (and most don't) and don't use it then it can, and that seems to be a project in progress.
Since the lockdowns and people being barred from shopping etc there have definitely been people saying cash protects freedom. Privacy is a type of freedom anyway.
This is exactly correct, and also exactly why blockchain-based cryptocurrency has utterly failed to deliver on its promises to bring freedom from the tyrannies of fiat currency. In fact, the technology has been pivotal in ushering in this CBDC madness. Returning to the gold standard was always the best solution available, and we just ignored it to our own peril. It preserves both privacy and universal acceptability, which provides the user far more freedom than any other available alternative.
The inconvenience of "my piles of money will no longer be legal tender in five years" and "all of my money is locked in accounts I cannot access starting immediately" are in entirely different categories.
I experienced this directly, when the electronic payment system recently collapsed in my part of Canada for ~2 days. I fortunately had a small amount of cash on me. Without it, I would have been unable to buy lunch, top-up my nearly expired phone plan, and then buy a train ticket and go about my normal day. It was also fortunate for my friend, who I lent $20. Can't take cash out at the ATM either obviously. I would have been stuck at home all day. I wouldn't have been able to give a small amount of money to my friend. Being able to lock people out of their bank accounts is far more specific, and disabling, than regulations on cash could be.
Some businesses are already going cashless (here in Finland, have understood it is also happening on Sweden).
As most people anyways pay card/phone/app, it’s not worth of trouble to deal with cash. Handling cash gives you security problems (robberies) and adds costs (need to regularly take money to bank).
I am pushing 50 and the idea of America becoming cashless in my lifetime is not going to happen.
There is no way our law makers are going to want to lose access to cash. No one wants to get a bribe or conduct a shady deal in a highly traceable digital currency in the US.
Not to mention, we can't even get rid of 100% utterly useless pennies. They are basically a form of government printed litter that I am not sure is even worth a homeless person's time to be bothered with.
I was surprised at charging a higher rate for cash, until reading the article where it didn't mention that.
What was mentioned was a service fee for withdrawing cash above the limits from bank branches. Which also seemed surprising - to reduce the demand for cash-cash, restrict the supply. That that article mentions 85% of cash in circulation is held outside banks does not also seem alarming, it'd be interesting to read more about money velocity and other non-cash-cash outside the CBDC like non-CB Digital Wallets.
Sweden's banks had a joint ATM system[1] since ~2010, I admittedly have no idea about the situation on the countryside, but at least in Stockholm, they're in ample supply seeing that it is extremely rare that someone pays with cash. I once had to get about 15000SEK (~1500€) in cash, and that wasn't a problem at all.
It's an interesting 'problem'. Handling cash has a cost. I don't know how batopin handles it, but it's, for example, around 1/5 the cost, largely logistical, to fill a machine with 50s instead of 10s. Where ATM network withdrawals carry no fee, there's no brand loyalty for where to get your cash, so where's the incentive to carry lower denomination notes? CBs have employed various methods to keep lower value notes in circulation such as X number of 10s per X number of 50s - perhaps a central 'cashless' push will be in these lower denominations, but that's purely speculation on my part.
Interesting to see And it is what we all fall back on when the technology fails us. In other words, cash has far from lost its age-old reason for being! in the waffle. That's also my understanding - that cash becomes extremely valuable in times of acute crisis (like a zombie apocalypse) because it has all the characteristics (divisible, recognised, sufficiently rare, durable and easy to carry, easier to 'barter' than a can of beans, etc) of... money.
“Customers should be encouraged to use alternative channels (Internet banking, mobile banking apps, USSD, cards/POS, eNaira, etc.) to conduct their banking transactions.”
Yes, i’m serious. I don’t see anything directed to use strictly CBDC here. They seem like to tackle tax evasion for business and individuals (read it like: traceable) In many countries there are limits on what you can do with cash already.
I think what many societies have discovered in the past few years is, if a proposed authoritarian policy only (or just disproportionately) hurts "the other side", then half the country will abandon any principles they used to have so they can claim that it's actually a good policy to implement.
That rant views freedom as purely individual, and not collective, or more likely the compromises in other to have both.
It also doesn't explain the difference between CBDC with traditional debit/credit card systems, which do impose a ton of restrictions to some in order to protect freedoms for others (whether demonitizing a porn site that does not hold uploaders accountable, or reducing tax evasion).
We still have cash right now - that is the important distinction. You can choose to put your cash under your mattress, self custody has always been a thing.
Our bank accounts have some legislated protections and even if they decide to de-platform me from my bank account they have to provide me with the money (sanctions aside) in that bank account in the form of cash or a medium that can be exchanged for cash.
If cash ceases to exist then what? If the government decides that I (or a group) are to be blocked from transacting, without cash then what happens?
We currently have choice - CBDCs will remove that choice for everyone and unilaterally grant governments an absurd amount of power - as demonstrated in that thread
I think that's key, legislation. We rely on legislation one way or another.
As geeks we're always trying to think of technical solutions, but over and over again, what guarantees our freedom are strong and robust democratic institutions that make it possible to address the social issues.
I think we are also of the mindset that "If we have the capability to do things ourselves in such a way that removes the need for legislation then why can't we"?
If you lose $500 in cash because you tucked it in your pocket and dropped it you don't expect recourse from the government, you might report it missing and hope for the best but that's about it.
So why does Crypto need such heavy regulation with the regulators saying that "well you need protection from losses". We don't - we need the freedom to be able to choose what to do with OUR money - even if those decisions are dumb.
you compare pear and apples. CBDC is to be compared with your current saving account, whereas a debit card is how you can spend the money from that account, whether it's a saving account or a CBDC. Likely debit cards will still exist with CBDC, assuming not everyone has a smartphone.
The "advantages" of CBDC, in regard to governments, is that this is a sort of entry in a database, possibly every dollar having an "id", perfect for tracking. They will know what you bought, when, etc. Also, governments could delete that entry to remove dollar from your account. They also could simply lock that account since the CB/government issue this currency as it's not controlled anymore by your local bank. In a sense, governments already have some of these capabilities, but it's a lot of procedures to access and block the money (remember the Canadian truckers?). And at the moment, it's even harder to track the flow of money in the current system. CBDC is going to make such control much easier and faster.
The most significant thing about a CBDC that it's a liability on the government or the central bank in this case. It's a legal tender while a checking or savings account isn't
Use of one bank's credit card is voluntary and not mandated by the central authority. It's the difference between choosing to only read the New York Times or a government enforcement of one source of news
Is it? I can't see living in Europe without an IBAN for instance -- and the card that comes with one. And that's not something the government is enforcing.
Same in the US, you can't not have a credit card because of the credit score system there. Use of a credit card is mandatory because you need it to financially "exist."
Living without a bank account ('IBAN') in the EU would be hard today. Living without a debit card is still doable, but becoming less and less practical. Living without a credit card is completely normal, many people do not own one, including me.
I want to quote something from another article about CBDC usage in Denmark, as it seems like Denmark is pretty oppositional to using CBDC:
"In a report on new types of digital money, Danmarks Nationalbank analyzes the popular motivations for a central bank digital currency (CBDC) amongst developed nations. As context, Denmark is one of the EU countries that is not part of the euro currency zone. A core rationale promoted by the European Central Bank (ECB) is for a retail CBDC to act as a trust ‘anchor’ for digital money once cash disappears. Denmark’s central bank highlights that its domestic payments are already primarily digital – just over 10% of physical purchases in Denmark use cash – and it does just fine without a CBDC."
I'm not really sure what 'access to electricity' actually means.
Would it still count as access if the electricity was only available for an hour a day on average? Or would it count if said access comes mostly from privately-owned diesel generators?
If the answer is 'yes' to either question then those numbers are quite accurate.
Excepting COVID, where the line went flat, it seems to be consistently improving. Compared to the other countries in Africa, I'd say they are on par or much better off.
Not a great situation, but seemingly improving at a steady clip, so maybe it isn't as bad as the bare number would imply. To steel-man the government's motives, I might hazard a guess they are hoping that a digital currency will attract more investment in technology. It's very much a "rising tide lifts all boats" plan that historically ends up with a lot of inequalities, but given their economic reliance on oil production, diversifying makes sense.
Or, it's just another corrupt scheme that is lining a few pockets.
By introducing a CBDC, the Nigerian government hopes to attract revenues that come from remittances, which have mostly shifted to crypto channels because of poor international trade policies. Today, getting USD liquidity as an importer/exporter is challenging, as there are two market rates - one for banks & few institutions, the other for individuals & the vast majority of the economy. To find competitive rates, people resort to P2P markets. Furthermore, the Nigerian government banned licensed money operators from transacting with any crypto entity - essentially shutting down revenues from fiat deposits. Restrictions like withdrawal limits on USD accounts ($10k per month) makes it highly unfavorable for such high-volume merchants to transact in USD via the banking system. A CBDC is a way of the Nigerian government looking at all that activity with the hopes to attract the revenues that flow within crypto, but they miss the fundamental step of favorable trade & monetary policies that increase USD liquidity and opens up crypto officially to capture remittance revenues.
Not discounting the value of the other facts you shared, but how does digital currency change the status quo if the problem preventing remittances through official channels?
Isn’t it yet another official channel that lacks the same international trade connections just like regular bank accounts?
The government is just looking for a way to save face for their failed economic policies. They’re setting up this law in a country where digital banking is unreliable; it’s not uncommon for bank networks go down for hours.
Because of how reckless they’ve managed our economy, banks are finding it difficult to access foreign exchange. One consequence is that I can no longer spend the equivalent of more than $20 per month from my local debit card on payments, so I have to resort to using cryptocurrency to pay for my websites and domain names…this is a horrible law set by a clueless government that just wants more control over citizens but won’t fix simple things like electricity and roads.
> I have to resort to using cryptocurrency to pay for my websites and domain names
How do people typically convert from local currency to cryptocurrency? Is Bitcoin the most popular cryptocurrency? Are there not relatively high fees for conversion from cash to crypto, or to use crypto as payments for smaller transactions?
Not that I support this program, because I don't know much about it to decide, but I know from where I live now if you don't have electricity then you are living a very simple life and probably aren't using that much cash each week anyways.
So, the amount allowed to be withdrawn sounds small but it might not affect those without electricity. Plus, if they don't have electricity there is no ATM and therefore they have all their cash on hand as I know many stories of remote island villages where people just keep money in their house. The best stories are of those who are truly remote but making absolute bank selling kava roots and they come down to the major town and buy new Toyota trucks in all cash stuffed into 25kg bags of rice.
Sadly this appears to be true. Apparently the largest 12 U.S. banks (Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, etc.) are pushing for CBDC and most of the ~4.7k other commercial banks oppose it. Guess who is winning? [0]
Can someone explain to me why this wouldn't have the perverse effect of discouraging the use of conventional bank accounts and causing people to just hold onto their cash or to put it in the equivalent of safe deposit boxes, or for wealthier people, to use "offshore" banks or to purchase assets easily convertible into cash?
India's approach was to cancel large-denomination banknotes, but it did not have the intended effect, https://archive.ph/ynouY
> India’s prime minister, announced in November that Rs1,000 ($16) and Rs500 notes would no longer be legal tender, he suggested that corrupt officials, businessmen and criminals — popularly believed to hoard large amounts of illicit cash — would be stuck with “worthless pieces of paper”. But the Reserve Bank of India’s annual report on Wednesday suggested that most holders of the old currency managed to dispose of it
> ... The bank’s estimate follows media reports that complex money-laundering networks sprang up in the wake of the demonetisation to help wealthy Indians deposit huge volumes of previously undeclared currency without exposing themselves to tax authorities. Such people allegedly sold the old notes, at a discount, to brokers who then dispatched low-income Indians to deposit or exchange them at banks.
> India's approach was to cancel large-denomination banknotes, but it did not have the intended effect
The objective was not to cancel large-denomination banknotes, given that even larger notes were issued in their place (2000 Rupee notes). The printing of those notes were well underway when "demonetization" was announced. The goal was to understand how much cash remained in the system, and to move away from a cash-based economy.
Just as most government programs, results are mixed. It seemed more of a failure immediately afterward, but with 6 years of hindsight doesn't seem as bad. It kicked off India's digital economy, with UPI digital payments finding mass acceptance. UPI payments went from $1.5B in October 2016, to $10B the following month. This triggered mass adoption of phone payment apps, and the transaction value stands at $140+ billion per month as of today. In most tier-1 and tier-2 cities in India, you don't need cash or a credit card to survive.
As far as tax evasion is concerned, while it wasn't any sort of total success it did pave the way for more transactions to flow through monitored digital channels. Today banks don't accept any significant amount as cash deposits and there are strict caps on annual cash transactions. Overall, the "demonetization" event of Nov 2016 was imho a success as far as the government's objectives were concerned.
As a private citizen however, I don't particularly like the privacy problems that tag along with this.
> The goal was to understand how much cash remained in the system
The RBI which prints the banknotes knows how much cash is in the system. I've heard a lot of nonsensical justifications of demonetization. This is by far the the worst.
> but with 6 years of hindsight doesn't seem as bad. It kicked off India's digital economy
Kick starting India's digital economy did not require bringing the physical economy to a fucking standstill.
> UPI payments went from $1.5B in October 2016, to $10B the following month.
Value of UPI transactions in October 2016 was 48.57Cr, rising to 100.46Cr in November and 700Cr in December. In November 2022, the figure is 11,90,593.39Cr.
> This triggered mass adoption of phone payment apps,
Define mass. In 2016 smartphone penetration in India was ~24%.
> In most tier-1 and tier-2 cities in India, you don't need cash or a credit card to survive.
Ah, the endless queues, the needless suffering, the lost jobs and destroyed lives, all made up for by the fact that the urban middle class now has the convenience of UPI!
> Today banks don't accept any significant amount as cash deposits and there are strict caps on annual cash transactions.
Which to repeat myself, did not require bringing the economy to a fucking standstill. And limitations on value of cash transactions aren't a new idea and predate demonetization.
> Overall, the "demonetization" event of Nov 2016 was imho a success as far as the government's objectives were concerned.
99.3% of the demonetized currency was returned and six years later, the amount of cash in the economy has doubled. It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to claim this was a success.
> This triggered mass adoption of phone payment apps,
I worked in the digital payments industry at that time. The sectoral growth was unprecedented during that period. Between Oct 2016 and Jan 2017, transaction value went up 40 times!
> UPI payments went from $1.5B in October 2016, to $10B the following month.
I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make was that it grew 600% that month, as opposed to 10-20% otherwise. To reach 140B today.
> Ah, the endless queues, the needless suffering, the lost jobs and destroyed lives, all made up for by the fact that the urban middle class now has the convenience of UPI!
It's not the urban middle class alone who have benefitted. People asking for handouts have UPI ids these days. $1.7T will flow through UPI over the next 12 months, even if you assume it stays at current levels. Credit cards would not have worked in India (if you leave out the wealthy), but UPI does.
> Which to repeat myself, did not require bringing the economy to a fucking standstill. And limitations on value of cash transactions aren't a new idea and predate demonetization.
The point is that transformation to a digital economy needs to be kick started. It'll take forever otherwise (if you study how various countries have done).
> Kick starting India's digital economy did not require bringing the physical economy to a fucking standstill.
a) How do you know, given that there's no precedent?
b) India still registered decent growth in 2016 and 2017. Economy wasn't in an "effing standstill".
> The goal was to understand how much cash remained in the system, and to move away from a cash-based economy.
This is absolutely rewriting history. The stated goal at that time was “to remove black money”. The Reserve Bank of India knows how much cash is in the system at any point in time. That’s why we get periodic reports about it.
> It seemed more of a failure immediately afterward, but with 6 years of hindsight doesn't seem as bad.
A very badly thought out and badly executed move that resulted in about 150 people dying does seem very bad to me. The digital economy did not need such a stunt. Also, the amount of cash in circulation has more than doubled since that event in 2016.
The same attitude of “we’ll tell the people what’s good for them” repeated again during the COVID-19 pandemic with sudden lockdown announcements that left hundreds of thousands of migrant laborers without work and without a proper way to get back home (or have access to food and water).
As a private citizen, I would like others not to suffer so much because someone thinks they know better than everyone else and issues diktats that harm people.
Thanks unmole for correcting these numbers. (Too late to edit now).
- Nov 2022 is 140B (accurate)
- Oct 2016 was 150m not 1.5B (incorrect)
- Nov 2016 was 1B not 10B (incorrect)
The point still stands. UPI grew 600% in Oct-Nov 2016, and 10-20% per month afterwards - to reach 140B as of last month.
Also, in India the dominant digital payments mode in 4Q 2016 was digitals wallets, not UPI. UPI was small fish, but rapidly grew to devour digital wallets (because you didn't have to preload money).
Damg, Sorry. Made a mistake again in the parent post: 150m = 15m, 1B = 100m^.
As a Nigerian, one of my biggest goals is to save enough to invest in a second passport. Since the last administration took over, their policies have been spectacularly bad - and that's coming from me, a Nigerian (and African) who has only known bad government all his life.
When COVID-19 kicked in and oil revenues dried up, the government turned on the printing presses and churned out an awful amount of Nairas. Like anyone who has a basic knowledge of economics would have expected, the Naira tanked - aggressively. From around N365/$1 to N740/$1 as of today (i.e., on the black market).
Instead of facing up to the problem, the government has created multiple exchange rates, demonized bureau de change operators, and generally restricted how much FX you can access.
And as presidential elections are coming up in 2023, millions of citizens are still eager to vote for the clowns that will just crank the lever to 11.
At some point, you just feel trapped. Most citizens don't even recognize it and the CBDC was launched without no opposition.
Come to think of it, it was launched after a series of anti-government protests in OCTOBER 2022. So, the government started tying SIM cards to personal ID numbers and trying to force a CBDC. So, if such a protest should repeat itself, you just get cut off from the financial system without fanfare.
That's what pains me: those who were protesting government brutality in October 2020 have said nothing about this and they see it as just another step towards a digital economy.
It's so discouraging being a libertarian and knowing how this will end.
The title is a bit of an exaggeration. Withdrawals above that are not banned, but subject to a 5% fee. Also, it is not a new rule but a lowering of the limit of an existing rule.
Not true in Nigeria…if you use an ATM from the same bank you hold your account, you won’t be charged any fee. If you use another bank’s ATM, you’ll be charged a flat fee of 35 naira ($0.08).
Wouldn’t the 5% be on top of an ATM? Plus a regular cash user (not a trapped tourist) is going to be using a free one or withdrawing for free from a teller.
The introduction of bail-ins after the 2008 crisis is also worth mentioning here. For instance, "47.5% of all bank deposits above €100,000 were seized" during the Cypriot Financial Crisis 2012-2013 [1].
The odd thing is they try to sell it as a technology? Where is the innovation? It's just private payment networks moving onto one single network controlled by a central authority. No authority has had this responsibility in human history before. If this authority is abused you won't be able to put gas in your car if the authority denies it
I assume the person you are replying to is referring to the government freezing the bank accounts of people who contributed to the trucker protests. Though it should be noted that this was done through existing bank infrastructure. CBDC would give governments much more granularity in controlling how people use their money.
It's possible CBDC's will only be launched in certain countries. I'm hoping at least America will embrace crypto instead of pushing it offshore (and of course also figure out the regulatory aspects to reduce/eliminate the bad actors in the space). Time will tell.
Eventually we will get to LPI/LPD mesh networks as a requirement to run zk-based cryptos. Unless we self-host at the PHY layer with software radios, they will tighten the screws until we are all enslaved.
this is way to 'promote' CBDC adoption - increase the friction on the use of cash or digital alternatives. From the POV of the central govt, you can see why CBDC makes sense - it will certainly increase state power, and by extension, national power. Interesting to see Nigeria pioneer these techniques, I wonder whether Africa will end up leading the way here
I was part of a team working on a CBDC and I'm glad I left that project. The possibilities of abusing a CBDC are massive and gladly we had tough time finding a benign use case for it.
Given that there's always going to be demand for a non-digital currency outside of the control of a central government (which I believe is good for many perspectives although the demand for something like this is far below what most crypto bros will try to convince you of), I do wonder how people are going to transact in those situations. Gold? Monero? US Dollars or other currencies?
I think it's important to focus on the 'Central Bank' part, more than the digital currency part. What are their incentives and do they align to a more open and free society?
My interest in Bitcoin (since 2014) has never been because I thought it was private. My interest is because of its potential to transform the financial system. I actually think the public auditability of Bitcoin is one of its strengths as a technology.
I believe I have a decent understanding of the subject, but I’d love to hear a good podcast about it. However, I’m not familiar with James Corbett, and googling the name seems to result in a lot of conspiracy-related stuff.
Which is not to say CBDCs aren’t conspiratorial enough on their own, but is that an educational show, or is it more politically oriented?
I've listened to Corbett for some time and used to watch his videos prior to being silenced on several platforms. He does present himself in a manor that sounds like a conspiracy theorist which is unfortunate because he is actually one of the few decent investigative journalists that remain on the internet. I suspect he presents himself that way because it draws a bigger audience or perhaps it's just his personality. Either way, I appreciate that he does not ask permission from the Trusted News Initiative to speak.
I think this would be an interesting topic in and of itself. Why do investigative journalists that cover taboo or fringe topics end up sounding the way they do? Is it a reaction to the frustration of being silenced? Is it a quirk of a particular personality type? Or maybe it's me? Maybe I am so used to listening to corporate media that anyone who deviates from their presentation style just sounds a bit off?
Maybe listen and draw your own conclusions? In this episode he uses fringe sources like the American Bankers Association. He does cover conspiracies, but some conspiracies are actually true. This appears to be one of them.
His channel was removed from social media for questioning the ever changing and largely incoherent COVID narrative. [0] [1]
But if you or anyone else finds a more comprehensive resource, please share.
That’s the thing, the same could be said of any random piece of media ever made, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going through all of it.
There are plenty of quality programs out there, and I don’t want to realize I should have spent that time listening to In Our Time an hour into the show.
I’m opposed to CBDCs. But this person generally seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist, and I’d rather start with a more meat-and-potatoes approach.
And I’m not sure what removal from social media has to do with whether or not he’s worth listening to.
> That’s the thing, the same could be said of any random piece of media ever made, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going through all of it.
Then I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve with this kind of commentary. Why not just move on?
Should I not have shared the best podcast I have thus far found about CBDCs because it doesn't meet the ad hominem Google check? If that's the case, then that's a shame because a lot of good sources were swept up in COVID cancellation fever for no good reason.
> And I’m not sure what removal from social media has to do with whether or not he’s worth listening to.
Because the sources you're relying on that portray him as a conspiracy nut are the same ones that were cancelling every other person who had something to say about COVID that wasn't sanctioned by the CDC/NIH (Google).
Corbett's supposed crime that resulted in his cancellation was playing clips of Anthony Fauci making contradicting statements to the media days/weeks apart and turning it into a game of "simon says".
As I said in the parent comment (and as confirmed by the other commenter), he seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist. One of the first search results was an AMA he did on r/conspiracy.
But you’re right, I’ll move on. I might even give the show a listen sometime. I just prefer looking at things from a more mainstream perspective first.
