On this page
CBDC vs. crypto vs. stablecoins vs. FedNow — what's the difference?
These get conflated, but the differences matter:
- Crypto (Bitcoin, Ethereum): decentralized, public chains, no central issuer, supply/rules in code, pseudonymous users.
- (USDC, USDT): privately issued tokens pegged to a fiat asset, redeemable against private reserves. The issuer, not the central bank, is the counterparty.
- CBDC: central-bank-issued digital fiat. The central bank is the direct counterparty (a liability on its balance sheet), typically on a permissioned ledger.
- (US, 2023): a real-time retail payment infrastructure, not a CBDC. It moves commercial-bank money instantly 24/7; the Federal Reserve has not issued a digital dollar.
Who stands behind the money
Retail vs. wholesale: two very different CBDCs
Retail CBDCs are accessible to households and businesses for everyday payments — the digital-cash analogue. Wholesale CBDCs are restricted to financial institutions for interbank settlement and capital-market transactions; they modernize the central-bank reserve rails rather than the consumer experience. Some projects (e.g. the digital euro) are retail-led; others (e.g. mBridge) focus on wholesale cross-border settlement.
Who can hold a CBDC
Why central banks want their own digital cash
- Payment modernization: faster, cheaper, programmable domestic payments — especially where legacy rails are slow.
- Financial inclusion: a public-sector wallet can reach the unbanked without requiring a commercial-bank account.
- Monetary sovereignty: a public alternative to private stablecoins and foreign payment rails (e.g. USDC, USDT, foreign CBDCs) helps preserve the central bank’s grip on the unit of account.
- Policy transmission: programmable money could in principle enable targeted transfers, expiry dates, or rate-tiered balances — a capability cash cannot offer.
The same programmability that enables instant tax refunds or expiring stimulus vouchers also enables negative rates, spending limits, or geofenced use. The policy debate is not whether the technology can do this — it can — but whether the legal framework should permit it.