3 ms·

One hand giveth and the same hand can take it away. Central banks are still problematic because of the lack of ownership transparency. (The full picture of who

One hand giveth and the same hand can take it away. Central banks are still problematic because of the lack of ownership transparency. (The full picture of who owns what.) Should some quasi-public-private entity or the mothership BIS have so much power over our lives? IFF central banks were fully public institutions and subject to public accountability then no one would argue against CBDCs. But since that is not the case, what is exactly is the benefit of handing over keys to our lives to __shadowy bankers__? Who owns what. Lets see this document. Down to the penny and beyond shell companies. Which individuals and families are getting the interest payments made to "national" central banks? Who are they? Let's see that and then we can discuss handing over 'oversight power' of where and when with whom we can exchange "our" money to them.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
> > IFF central banks were fully public institutions and subject to public accountability then no one would argue against CBDCs Do you know the name and family history of people guarding the National gold reserves at Fort Knox? Or (much more importantly) the name and the family history of those who are entrusted to control the silos of ICBM both on land and submarines? No, you have the general assurance that they are competent and not traitors. With Central Banks you’d have the general assurance that they will not put your money deposits to work in any way, shape or form. They’d not invest them at all, just boringly let them sit on the database. One thing that I agree on is to have more transparency and also to enable a citizen from the US to hold money with the Central Bank of say Europe or Japan (and viceversa)