• @Zoldyck
    link
    English
    171 year ago

    I really don’t see the added benefit in this. We can already use our existing money in a digital way.

    Doesn’t this just complicate things? Am I missing something?

    • xNIBx
      link
      fedilink
      28
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Current transactions have a transaction fee. The digital euro will have maybe lower fees? Or 0 fee for non commercialized transactions?

      The digital euro will be available to everyone, not just to people with bank accounts. In some countries, poor people have a hard time getting a bank account.

      Privacy. Currently your bank knows what you buy and they can even potentially sell that information. Maybe with digital euro, only the government will know.

      Offline. With digital euro you can buy stuff offline, ie without an internet connection. This in theory could also provide the same privacy as cash.

      Maybe we can eventually cut the middleman, banks, out of the equation.

      • Tulko
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        Cutting banks out of equation would be nice, but I don’t think they will ever let it happen, they will always lobby for their interests and will find ways to monetize us.

      • tal
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The immediate reaction in the thread seems to be something like “what makes it a good alternative to Bitcoin” but it might be that it’s aimed more as a competitor to the physical euro.

        If the government knows when payments have been made, that eliminates potential for not reporting sales, which I understand is a significant issue in some EU members.

        There’s also some cost to handling (including security) and maintaining physical currency that doesn’t exist with digital currency.

        Here’s an article arguing that the US – which has apparently not shown much interest in a “digital dollar” – should adopt something similar. The rationales it gives seem more aimed at it being an alternative to physical cash:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/opinion/cash-digital-currency-central-bank.html

        • One benefit is security. Cash is vulnerable to loss and theft, a problem for both individuals and businesses, whereas digital currencies are relatively secure. Electronic hacking does pose a risk, but one that can be managed with new technologies.

        • Digital currencies also benefit the poor and the “unbanked.” It is hard to get a credit card if you don’t have much money, and banks charge fees for low-balance accounts that can make them prohibitively expensive. But a digital dollar would give everyone, including the poor, access to a digital payment system and a portal for basic banking services.

        • A central-bank digital currency can also be a useful policy tool. Typically, if the Federal Reserve wants to stimulate consumption and investment, it can cut interest rates and make cheap credit available. But if the economy is cratering and the Fed has already cut the short-term interest rate it controls to near zero, its options are limited. If cash were replaced with a digital dollar, however, the Fed could impose a negative interest rate by gradually shrinking the electronic balances in everyone’s digital currency accounts, creating an incentive for consumers to spend and for companies to invest.

        That one might not be too popular with users.

        • A digital dollar would also hinder illegal activities that rely on anonymous cash transactions, such as drug dealing, money laundering and terrorism financing. It would bring “off the books” economic activity out of the shadows and into the formal economy, increasing tax revenues.
        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I struggle to understand the “poor and unbanked” argument. You will still need a smartphone and an app at the very least? Which is not cheap?

          • tal
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I assume that they’re talking about not having the minimum funds available to open an account or not being able to maintain the minimum balance and having the fees for not doing so being significant.

            https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/bank-account-minimum-deposit-minimum-balance-requirements/

            A minimum opening deposit is a certain amount of money—usually $25 to $100—that a bank or credit union requires you to deposit to open a checking or savings account. Some financial institutions do not require a minimum opening deposit.

            https://www.thebalancemoney.com/typical-minimum-balance-for-traditional-savings-accounts-5204547

            When you open a traditional savings account, you may need to keep a certain amount of money in the account to avoid a monthly service fee. The minimum balance ranges from $300 to $500 in most cases, while the fees typically are around $5.

            The bank is going to make their money by lending out the money you deposit, so they’re going to want to have some money kept in the account.

            Might also be that “unbanked” is a euphemism for illegal immigrants who don’t have bank accounts because they’re worried about showing up to immigration enforcement or something. It looks like, while an illegal immigrant won’t have a Social Security number, there are ways to get around that.

            googles

            Or maybe that they immigrated legally from somewhere where banks aren’t a very safe place to put money.

            https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/12/more-than-12percent-of-hispanic-households-are-unbanked-why-that-can-cost-a-lot.html

            More than 12% of Hispanic households don’t have a bank account.

            Still, Hispanic households are less inclined than white, non-Hispanic ones to use the banking system. In 2019, 12.2% of Hispanic households were unbanked, compared to 2.5% of white ones, according to the FDIC’s latest survey. Black households had a rate of 13.8%.

            The reasons for staying away from bank accounts may vary. There may be language barriers or a distrust of banking institutions, especially for those who may have come from a country that had a weak or corrupt system, Espinal said.

            The main reason people are unbanked is the belief that minimum balances are too high for them to meet, said Karyen Chu, chief of banking research at the FDIC. Therefore, they will incur fees.

            I mean, a mobile phone is going to cost something too, but I think that that’s kinda considered to be an essential by a lot of people today. Like, they’re going to want to have a phone to have a phone, independently of how they might use that phone to spend money.

      • @Tar_alcaran
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Wait, people are paying for private transactions?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The whole society always has to pay for transactions as they require work. You either pay with increased prices, by using other services from the banks that cost something or by leeching off of other people paying for the transaction system. The idea of the digital euro could be to decrease this work by introducing a more efficient system.

          • @Tar_alcaran
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            The actual work behind a private banktransfer is fractions of cents, including power. Technically you’re correct, but in the real world, if you paid the real cost of all your private banktransfers, you could probably cover a years worth with a few nickel (if that).

            I truly don’t see the benefit of this for countries that already have a good banking system. Every benefit mentioned for this system has been available for years or decades in the Netherlands, or has a functionally identical equivalent.

            But I see lots of advantages for people who don’t have access to a cheap, good and easy banking system.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              But aren’t the current fees some nickel per transaction, e. g., if you pay with a credit card? Why are the fees so high currently? I do not think that the banks have such a high margin.

              • @Tar_alcaran
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                Credit cards are expensive, because their security measures can be circumvented by a moderately good photograph of one. You’re paying for all the fraud getting compensated.

                But a regular (first-party) bank transfer has no such overhead.

              • @Tar_alcaran
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You can use public transportation directly with any V-pay, maestro, visa or MasterCard debit- or credit card, or Apple or Google pay nowadays.

                If you absolutely must have a chipkaart, you can get one from any ticket machine at a station. No Dutch bank account required.

    • tal
      link
      fedilink
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Relative to some other digital system, this is what WP has as ECB goals:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_euro

      Arguments and motives for the introduction of a digital euro are, according to the ECB:

      • Maintain the role of central bank money as a monetary anchor for the payment system.
      • Provide free digital access to a secure legal tender in the Eurozone
      • Expanding payment options through alternative central bank money alongside cash and book money in commercial bank accounts, contributing to availability and inclusion
      • Building trust in digital cash through a high level of privacy protection
      • Promote innovation in retail payments
      • Limiting the spread of foreign digital currencies to safeguard the financial stability and monetary sovereignty of the Eurozone