> Quite the opposite actually, it emphasizes the importance of such anonymity but also acknowledges that it also comes with problems for society. I think this

> Quite the opposite actually, it emphasizes the importance of such anonymity but also acknowledges that it also comes with problems for society. I think this is just a tongue-in-cheek argument by the author. The article suggests adding a penalty for using cash, which, given the highly competitive payments landscape, will effectively accelerate the phase-out. Cynically, this could be read as making payment privacy exclusive to the better off, which has its own highly problematic implications. Purely from the perspective of raising more government funds, I can understand their argument. But from that perspective, I think there are better, less disruptive ways for governments to extract value from the payments system.