In a CBDC type system the Fed may or may not peg to an underlying asset. The paper does discuss the use of stablecoins as problematic. That likely means that

In a CBDC type system the Fed may or may not peg to an underlying asset. The paper does discuss the use of stablecoins as problematic. That likely means that the Federal Government doesn't want to peg your digital currency to a dollar or to anything physical. Without that pegging, they won't ever need to worry about a "run on the bank". Your CBDC will literally not be money, and any deposit you ever make for CBDC will have been a gift or maybe a purchase that won't be required to ever be reversed. The C in CBDC is Central. The government wants this centralized not decentralized. They will be able to create any amount of CBDC currency. The government will almost certainly push, along with this type of CBDC, for them to have far greater and more immediate control over your finances. In other words, any one of many government officials will be able to freeze your accounts (or drain them) at the push of a button. Hmm... I think that one of those three people did something bad - BAM - all three CBDC accounts are drained and frozen. Too bad, due to seizure laws, you can't ever get that back. All of the advantages of having a physical note or a $ in a bank account disappear with this system. The government will control the ledger and everything that happens to it. There won't be money - just entries in the government's ledger. You won't be able to walk around with cash or even purchase an ice cream cone for your daughter without the government knowing. That's in the best world. Just wait until the CBDC gets hacked like BTC or ETH. I doubt the government will return your govcoins. PS. The document mentions "key stakeholders" in the CBDC. They aren't talking about people. You and I are not key stakeholders in this endeavor.