4 ms·
That’s not me. I but can see how a DLT could work very well as means of a currency. We could have the commercial banks, and others if necessary, run nodes. The
by surfsvammel 6y ago
That’s not me. I but can see how a DLT could work very well as means of a currency.
We could have the commercial banks, and others if necessary, run nodes. They could verify payments on “accounts”, or addresses, (if we want to keep the old meaning of bank account, that’s fine, then we could instead call these addresses) which are held by the commercial banks. These addresses could be non-anonymous such that requirement for know-your-customer still reside with the commercial banks (the central banks really don’t want to have to get anyway near KYC requirements). Each such “account”/address could be linked to addresses of currency at the CB, which at that point was anonymous.
The CB could then have full control of the issuance of currency, control interest directly on the currency itself, everything being anonymous to the CB.
- imtringued 6y agoThe question is, why would banks run nodes? How do they get money to pay for the datacenters?
- surfsvammel 6y agoWell. Same as they do today. Lend money, borrow money (savings), finance ventures and mortgages, services.
- headmelted 6y agoBut why do that though? If the currency is going to be centrally issued then what reason is there to use a DLT given all of the drawbacks it would introduce? DLTs aren’t a solution to a technical problem, they’re a technical solution to a trust problem that comes with some pretty hefty implementation baggage and performance constraints. If you have to trust a single issuer anyway (as would be the case with a CBDC) then the core reason for using a DLT doesn’t exist.