Yeah. Especially if they are being implemented by commercial banks. (The other obvious alternatives are accounts with the central bank, or some form of distrib

Yeah. Especially if they are being implemented by commercial banks. (The other obvious alternatives are accounts with the central bank, or some form of distributed crypto style setup, where normal banks just act like the exchange, and probably run the mining/staking nodes). Would they just be bank accounts where you can only access fully settled funds, that probably lack many normal bank features (like atm or debit cards), an affiliated transfer mechansim that instantly settles but is irreversable? (In order to properly simulate cash?) After all, if it offers reversible payments that settle with a delay, then that is no better doing ACH transfers with a normal bank account, and banks would refuse to offer service to people with extremely poor credit (just as they do now). If the payments are instant and without recourse, then the system is just as risky for the user as actual cash, and probably even more so, as people cant "hack in" from the other side of the planet to take the paper money out of your leather wallet. Even if implemented with say digital signatures held on your mobile device, with all transfers needing to be signed with such certs, surely this would just result in phone malware being developed to steal the keys, (or if an HSM is used, malware that imitates the normal app, but signs transactions stealing your funds instead). Would there be transfer fees for this digital cash? If so, then that makes it less appealing for users. If not, then who is paying the costs for the infrastructure? In any scenario, I would expect the likes of PayPal, Venmo, Cashapp, Mastercard, Visa, etc to be opposed to this system, unless one of them is actually administering it, since whatever it is will likely meaningfully eat into their transaction volumes, and thus profits.