> It sounds like the central bank is thinking about becoming, well, a normal bank. We already have normal banks. That's not entirely the right way to think abo

> It sounds like the central bank is thinking about becoming, well, a normal bank. We already have normal banks. That's not entirely the right way to think about this. The money in your account at a "normal bank" only exists as a liability of that bank, and thus would disappear if the bank goes under. A CDBC would not be a liability of any bank, it would be equivalent to physical cash. I guess you could still think of that as a "liability of the central bank" because they would be responsible for maintaining the ledger. But a central bank cannot go bust in the same way that a normal bank can.