The Financialisation of Compliance
Imagine your payment for a product doesn’t go through until a third party confirms the item meets certain criteria — carbon footprint, ‘ethical sourcing’, regulatory compliance… whatever. Not a voluntary check you choose to make, but a programmed condition built into the payment itself.
The infrastructure to make this work is being built right now by the world’s most powerful financial institutions, and they’re surprisingly explicit about it. What’s more: it’s no longer just pilots and prototypes.
Parts of this system are already operational.
On 20 June 2023, the Bank for International Settlements published its Annual Economic Report 2023, Chapter III (’Blueprint for the future monetary system’)1, proposing a unified ledger: a programmable financial market infrastructure combining central bank digital currencies, tokenised deposits, and tokenised real-world assets.
What they propose is a single programmable platform where tokenised money (central bank digital currencies) and tokenised real-world assets (carbon credits, digital product passports, securities) interact automatically.
The BIS frames this not as one option among many, but as a fundamental design principle:
Any application of the unified ledger concept should adhere to a number of high-level guiding principles. First and foremost, any application should be fully integrated with the two-tiered structure of the monetary system. In this way, the central bank could continue to support the singleness of money by providing settlement in wholesale CBDC, and the private sector could continue to innovate to the benefit of households and firms.
This does not describe a possibility — it mandates an architecture. Central banks control the wholesale settlement layer (wholesale=central banks and large banks; the clearinghouse foundation), while private intermediaries manage the retail interface (retail=end-user money; the customer-facing layer). Control flows downward: the wholesale layer sets the rules, the retail layer enforces them.
Historical Echoes
This architecture has precedents. The ‘positive money’ movement has long advocated for central bank digital currency as the monetary base, removing commercial banks’ ability to create money through lending. Under positive money, the central bank becomes the sole issuer — CBDC isn’t just settlement between banks, it’s the actual currency.
The slight issue here is that this can be used to establish ‘fifth plank’ conditions.
The two-tier structure enables this: wholesale CBDC provides the monetary foundation, retail intermediaries execute transactions within that framework. Commercial banks become service providers, not money creators.
The deeper parallel is to Technocracy Incorporated’s 1930s proposal for energy certificates — centrally-controlled units where economic access is mediated through programmable allocations. The concept was identical: replace market-driven currency with a centrally-managed system that can enforce conditions at the transaction level. The BIS unified ledger is the same control structure with 21st-century infrastructure: CBDC as the settlement unit, conditional payments as the access control mechanism, validators as the enforcement logic.
This is not ultimately about making payments faster. The BIS explicitly states the goal is ‘composability’ — meaning a carbon credential can automatically interact with a conditional payment without human intervention. The document specifically names ‘green’ (environment-related) financial contracts as a primary use case.
BIS Annual Economic Report 2023, Chapter III:
The BIS is surprisingly explicit:
Tokenisation – the process of recording claims on financial or real assets that exist on a traditional ledger on a programmable platform – introduces two important capabilities. First, by dispensing with messaging and the reliance on account managers to update records, it provides greater scope for composability, whereby several actions are bundled into one executable package. Second, it enables the contingent performance of actions through smart contracts, ie logical statements such as ‘if, then, or else’.
The latter relates to establishing a programmed set of events (should transactions clear or not) involving the former. In short, it enables the flow of finance to be programmable: ‘if this action clears then honour this contract, otherwise the other one’. At the retail level that could be understood as ‘if the employer pays your monthly salary today, buy steak, otherwise buy chicken’.
But that’s not all. On the unified ledger architecture:
The full benefits of tokenisation could be harnessed in a unified ledger... designed to be programmable so as to support contingent actions... A unified ledger transforms the way that intermediaries interact to serve end users. Through programmability and the platform’s ability to bundle transactions (‘composability’), a unified ledger allows sequences of financial transactions to be automated and seamlessly integrated
The unified ledger further relates to the tokenisation of various asset classes (digitisation of all physical assets, eventually). These transactions initially relate to wholesale (interbank, not retail) transactions, but the scaling to retail it already baked into the pie:
For example, a payment between two individuals, executed via a smart contract, would bring together the users’ banks (as providers of tokenised deposits) and the central bank (as provider of CBDC). Should the payment be conditional on some real-world contingency, that information would also be included.
They are in short building the technical rails so that when you try to buy something, the payment system can automatically check its carbon passport, and if it doesn’t pass, the transaction doesn’t complete. Not as a theoretical future — as the stated design goal. The BIS explicitly describes payments that execute only when external conditions validate — at the retail level.
The entire report is highly explosive, and I recommend you read it for yourself.
The Man Who Said The Quiet Part Out Loud
Agustín Carstens is the General Manager of the BIS — the coordination hub for the world’s central banks. Across multiple speeches in 2023–2024, he described a stack of ‘smart cloud’, ‘smart ledger’ and ‘smart regulator’, and argued that policy rules can be encoded at the ledger layer of tokenised money and assets.
The three layers:
The ‘smart cloud’ – the data layer holding carbon records, transaction history, identity credentials
The ‘smart ledger’ – where programmable money and assets interact
The ‘smart regulator’ – the controller
Not enforce rules after transactions happen. Not audit compliance later. Embed the rules into the transaction layer itself.
This is the head of the institution that coordinates global central banking explicitly advocating for compliance to become automated at the protocol level.
Rules aren’t enforced — they’re programmed in.
mBridge Moves to Production
Project mBridge is a multi-country platform for settling cross-border payments in central bank digital currencies. Participants include China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, coordinated by the BIS.
On 5 June 2024, the HKMA announced Project mBridge had reached MVP2 (minimum viable product) stage and was broadening participation — moving programmable cross-border rails from lab pilots to live trials. The BIS maintains an active invitation page for institutions to join the platform, demonstrating this is moving toward production onboarding, not academic research.
This matters because once international trade is settled on a programmable platform, embedding compliance checks becomes trivial. A shipment of steel crosses a border, the carbon credentials are checked programmatically, and the payment releases only when validation completes. No human gatekeepers — just automated protocol enforcement.
This is the cross-border backbone for the system. The original analysis focused on domestic retail payments. This is the plumbing for international trade.
Testing The Payment Lock
The Swiss National Bank isn’t merely theorising — they’re piloting.
Project Helvetia Phase III3 ran 1 December 2023 to 30 June 2024, with the SNB piloting CHF wholesale CBDC to settle tokenised assets with payment finality conditional on delivery — delivery-versus-payment (DvP), the industry term for programmable conditional settlement. Reuters reported that the pilot involved multiple digital bond issuances settled in CHF wholesale CBDC, with the pilot continuing ‘for at least two more years’4.
This is the three-party lock in action: Party A (buyer), Party B (seller), Party C (validator). The payment doesn’t complete until the validator confirms conditions are met.
The technical mechanism is identical whether the condition is ‘security delivered’ or ‘carbon credential verified’. The infrastructure is agnostic; it’s a general-purpose control valve for transactions.
Wholesale conditional settlement (like Helvetia III) happens between financial institutions settling large transactions — digital bonds, securities, interbank payments. This is delivery-versus-payment (DvP) at institutional scale: the payment only releases when the validator confirms the asset was delivered.
The exact same control primitive — locks and conditions — is now being ported to retail wallets via ‘smart wallets’ and ‘purpose-bound money’ implementations. What works for settling a $10 million bond between banks works identically for a consumer buying a $50 jacket, once products have digital credentials and payments are programmable. The conditional logic doesn’t care about transaction size or type. The Swiss pilot demonstrates the mechanism works; the retail implementations demonstrate it scales down to consumer transactions.
Smart Wallets Bring It To Consumers
While wholesale and cross-border systems get the headlines, the retail infrastructure — what affects everyday purchases — is moving faster than most people realise.
The is delivery through digital wallets that execute payment conditions automatically. Not just apps that store money, but ‘smart wallets’ that can check credentials, verify compliance data, and release (or block) payments based on programmed rules. These wallets work across smartphones, smart cards, wearables, and IoT devices.
How close is this to deployment?
China’s Digital Yuan introduced programmable payment features in 20255, allowing businesses to automate conditional payments and smart contract functionality. Official PBOC materials describe smart-contract-style features including vouchers and conditional disbursements. This is already operational.
Sweden’s Riksbank has tested conditional payment features in its e-Krona CBDC6, with pilots continuing and next deployment steps being planned. Their Phase 3 pilot report explicitly explores ‘payments that are conditional and dependent on factors such as external information’ — the same conditional architecture the BIS, ECB, and other central banks are building.
Singapore’s Monetary Authority tested ‘purpose-bound money’ (PBM) through Project Orchid7, where money redeems only if conditions are met. At the Singapore Fintech Festival, the MAS ran live trials where attendees used digital wallets to redeem conditional vouchers at approximately 200 merchant outlets via Grab and StraitsX — a retail proof-of-concept showing the system works at consumer scale8. The MAS explicitly describes this as exploring the possibility of programmable money and payments with a ‘user-driven approach’.
Many CBDC designs currently in development include programmable capabilities from the ground up. The Atlantic Council’s CBDC Tracker9 shows this is a standard feature consideration across major implementations.
The architecture is already built. Once smart wallets exist — and they will — adding conditional logic is a software update, not new infrastructure10.
The EU Scales Up Digital Product Passports
The EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) / Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 entered into force on 18 July 202411, establishing the legal framework for Digital Product Passports12 beyond batteries; textiles, electronics and furniture are next via delegated acts.
Current status:
Batteries: Mandatory Digital Product Passport from 18 February 202713 (first implementation). Volvo has already shipped vehicles with battery passports ahead of the mandate, demonstrating the infrastructure is operational.
Next categories: Textiles, electronics, furniture being determined via delegated acts
The item-level tracking infrastructure isn’t limited to industrial imports at borders. It’s being built for consumer goods. Every product gets a digital credential with embedded data — origin, materials, carbon footprint, compliance status.
Once products have machine-readable credentials and payments are programmable, connecting them is straightforward. You scan an item at checkout, the system reads its passport, checks compliance, and completes (or blocks) the payment automatically.
What This Will Look Like In Practice
Here’s a concrete scenario these systems enable:
You try to buy a product (steel, textile, smartphone — doesn’t matter)
The item has a Digital Product Passport (QR code, NFC chip, blockchain anchor)
Your payment is in a CBDC or programmable currency (digital euro, digital yuan, tokenised deposit)
At the point of transaction:
System reads the product passport
Checks embedded carbon/compliance data against current thresholds
If compliant: payment completes
If non-compliant: payment blocked or surcharged automatically
No human intervention required. It’s protocol-level enforcement.
This isn’t enforcement after the fact. It’s not audits and penalties. It’s automated, pre-emptive permissioning of every transaction.
Use cases already being discussed
Programmable welfare14 payments with spending restrictions or expiration dates
ESG-linked payouts that only clear if sustainability conditions are met
Payment-on-delivery conditions that release funds when sensors confirm arrival
Cross-border payments with compliance checks embedded in the transaction
The same three-party lock pattern the BIS tested in Project Rosalind and the SNB trialled in wholesale settlement is what gates payment release at checkout once credentials are read.
What ‘Conditional’ Means In Official Documents
This isn’t interpretation or extrapolation. The institutions building this infrastructure use the same language:
BIS Annual Economic Report 2023, Chapter III:
By combining composability and contingency, tokenisation makes the conditional performance of actions more readily attainable, even quite complex ones.
And on the unified ledger architecture:
The full benefits of tokenisation could be harnessed in a unified ledger... designed to be programmable so as to support contingent actions...
BIS/BoE Project Rosalind (Retail CBDC API)15: Demonstrates ‘locks’ in payment flows—conditional release patterns where payments are held until validators confirm conditions are met.
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), October 202416: Settlement occurs if the conditions associated with the tokenised asset are satisfied.
IMF Working Paper 24/177 (Programmability in Payment and Settlement Systems)17: Formalises conditional payments and execution logic as design elements in modern payment architecture, defining programmability across both ‘external access’ (who can use it) and ‘internal capabilities’ (what conditions it can enforce).
The technical specifications describe exactly what this analysis documents: payments that execute only when programmed conditions validate.
The infrastructure is designed for it.
Why ‘Just For Carbon’ Doesn’t Hold
The most critical — and deliberately overlooked — feature of this architecture is that these rails are general-purpose.
The Economy as Operating System
The BIS unified ledger functionally describes the future economy as a programmable operating system:
The Policy Layer: International bodies like the OECD define what should be measured — policy indicators, ESG metrics, compliance frameworks. Their 2025 report on tokenisation of assets and distributed ledger technologies18 shows how these organisations are coordinating on using programmable infrastructure for ‘policy objectives’.
The CPU: Central banks host the infrastructure — wholesale CBDC as the settlement layer where all transactions ultimately clear. From central bank to cleartinghouse bank.
The Firmware: Standards bodies (Basel Committee, Financial Stability Board, ISO) write the technical rules that govern system behavior — translating policy objectives into executable specifications
The APIs: Payment interfaces like Project Rosalind provide the programming layer where conditions can be attached to transactions
The Software: Smart contracts and validation logic that execute the rules
The BIS Annual Economic Report describes ‘programmable event-driven transactions’ running on a common venue where contingent actions are automated. That’s essentially the equivalent of a software architecture for economic activity.
The division of labor is clear:
IIASA/IPCC determines carbon reduction is a priority
OECD determine what’s to be measured
ISO creates ISO 1406719 to standardise carbon measures
The NGFS integrate with central banking
The BIS builds the unified ledger to enforce compliance
Basel/FSB write the prudential rules requiring financial institutions to participate
The FATF upholds through legislation.
Incidentally — why did the FATF include environmentalism and ‘debt for nature swaps’ as critical concerns already in 198920?
Composable Validators: Beyond Carbon
The Project Rosalind three-party lock demonstrates a validation framework, not a single-purpose check. There’s no technical reason the conditional logic must verify only one parameter. The architecture supports chaining multiple validators:
function validateTransaction(payment) {
let validations = [
carbonValidator.check(payment.product),
laborValidator.check(payment.supplier),
healthValidator.check(payment.consumer),
politicalValidator.check(payment.context)
];
return validations.every(v => v.passed);
}
This is what ‘composability’ can be taken to mean in practice: mix and match compliance checks as needed. Your payment doesn’t complete until it passes carbon verification AND labor standards AND health requirements AND political compliance — or whatever combination the system demands.
The Privacy Theater
The BIS and ECB frequently emphasise ‘privacy protection’ in their CBDC designs, typically framed as preventing commercial entities from accessing user data. But this privacy claim evaporates at the validator layer.
For validators to execute compliance checks, they must access the data they’re validating:
Identity validators need to see who you are and your compliance history
Carbon validators need to see what you’re buying and its embedded emissions
Health validators need to see your purchasing patterns and health status
Political validators need to see your transaction context and associations
Sweden’s Riksbank explicitly acknowledges this in their e-krona pilot documentation21:
More advanced payments that are conditional and dependent on factors such as external information may also mean that even more data on end users’ purchases will be shared within the network.
‘External information’ means exactly what it sounds like: carbon credentials, product passports, compliance scores — any ‘real-world contingency’ the system checks. The Riksbank is confirming that conditional payments require sharing your purchase data with validators. They’re building the infrastructure to do this while framing it as a technical consideration rather than a fundamental shift in economic surveillance.
The existing KYC22 (Know Your Customer) and AML23 (Anti-Money Laundering) frameworks already establish that financial privacy has exceptions for compliance and regulatory purposes. Under these frameworks, validator access is an explicit legal requirement. The data ‘isn’t available to third parties’ because the validators aren’t third parties — they’re the enforcement layer.
This means ‘privacy preserving’ conditional payments protect you from commercial competitors seeing your data — not from the validation infrastructure that gates your transactions. The system can claim privacy protection while validators have complete visibility into your economic activity. It’s privacy from capitalism, surveillance from the state.
Digital identity systems don’t care if they’re tracking carbon or something else. Programmable payment locks don’t care what condition they’re enforcing. Audit mechanisms don’t care what parameter they’re checking.
Technically, central banks draw a distinction between ‘programmable money’ (the currency itself has embedded rules) and ‘programmable payments’ (conditions are applied by intermediaries at the point of transaction). The European Central Bank, for instance, explicitly opposes programmable money in the core digital euro design, but actively enables conditional payments through payment service providers.
The ECB’s official FAQ states clearly24: ‘The digital euro would never be programmable money’. Yet the same institution’s analysis confirms that conditional payments via payment service providers would be permitted — allowing restrictions on how, when, or where digital euros could be spent.
More tellingly, the ECB’s own progress report on the digital euro (April 2023) describes the infrastructure being built25:
Second, the Eurosystem could provide additional settlement functionalities in the digital euro back-end infrastructure, notably a ‘reservation of funds’ functionality, which would be necessary for the safe provision of some conditional payment services to end users.
This is the Project Rosalind three-party lock in all but name. ‘Reservation of funds’ means payment is held until conditions are met — exactly the mechanism the BIS demonstrated in Rosalind and the SNB tested in Helvetia III. The ECB is building the identical conditional payment infrastructure while publicly denying programmability.
From the user’s perspective, this distinction is largely semantic. Whether the condition is embedded in the currency or applied by an intermediary, the practical effect at checkout is identical: your payment either clears or it doesn’t, based on whether the product meets programmed criteria. The ECB’s position actually demonstrates how pervasive this architecture has become — even institutions that publicly reject ‘programmable money’ are building the rails for transaction-level conditionality.
Carbon is the first parameter because:
Climate urgency creates political cover
Technical standards exist (ISO 14067, lifecycle assessment)
Economic justification is strong (externality pricing)
Public support exists for ‘environmental justice’
But once the infrastructure exists, adding new conditions is a policy decision, not a technical barrier. The BIS literally says the platform enables ‘composability’ — mix and match conditions as needed.
Want to add labor standards? Social equity metrics? Political compliance? Health requirements? Planetary Boundaries? The architecture handles it. You’re just adding another validator to the chain.
In short, they’re building a system to control what you can buy; carbon is merely the first excuse to normalise the control itself.
The Institutional Momentum Is Real
What makes this different from typical ‘slippery slope’ concerns:
It’s not hypothetical. These aren’t warning scenarios or academic models. The BIS published the blueprint. Carstens stated the intent explicitly. mBridge is operational. The Swiss are piloting it. China has deployed it. Sweden is moving to full deployment. The EU is scaling the passports.
It’s coordinated. This isn’t one country experimenting. It’s the BIS (coordination hub for 63 central banks), G20 backing, major economies building in parallel. BIS Papers No. 15926 (2025) found that 91% of central banks are actively exploring CBDCs — this is comprehensive institutional adoption, not isolated pilots.
It’s fast. The unified ledger blueprint published June 2023. mBridge MVP by October 2023. Swiss pilots completed. China operational. EU regulations adopted. This went from concept papers to operational deployment in under two years.
There’s no democratic checkpoint. Central banks are independent by design. Technical standards bodies aren’t elected. The BIS isn’t accountable to voters. The architecture gets built by institutions insulated from public pressure.
Timeline: From Blueprint to Deployment
20 June 2023 — BIS publishes Unified Ledger blueprint in Annual Economic Report
1 Dec 2023–30 Jun 2024 — Helvetia III: Swiss National Bank pilots wholesale CBDC conditional settlement (DvP); multiple digital bond issuances; pilot extended at least two more years
5 June 2024 — mBridge reaches MVP stage (programmable cross-border payments); BIS opens active invitation for institutional participation
18 July 2024 — EU ESPR (Regulation 2024/1781) enters into force establishing Digital Product Passport legal framework
2025 — China’s Digital Yuan deploys programmable payment features (vouchers, conditional disbursements); Singapore demonstrates purpose-bound money at Fintech Festival with ~200 merchants; Volvo ships vehicles with early battery passports; Sweden’s Riksbank continues e-Krona pilots with next deployment steps being planned
18 February 2027 — Battery Digital Product Passport becomes mandatory for EV/industrial/LMT batteries (first EU implementation)
Six Plus One Rails
Earlier essays laid out how infrastructure rails form an adaptive management system for transaction-level control. However, should we rearrange the order of these rails we don’t even need to explain this through general systems theory, input-output analysis and cybernetic. Instead, we can have each rail require the prior to function:
Standards (defines what gets measured; general systems theory)
Digital Identity (establishes who/what is tracked; general systems theory)
Data (captures the measurements; input-output analysis)
Accreditation (validates the data; general systems theory)
Audit (verifies compliance; input-output analysis)
Procurement (embedded enforcement via purchasing; cybernetics)
Finance (locks transactions to compliance status; cybernetics)
However, the true horror is revealed when inverted, as this reveals the actual function:
ontology (standard) → asset tagging (digital id) → surveillance (data)
→ license (accreditation) → variance detection (audit)
→ economic coercion (procurement) → enforcement (finance).
What this enables is Aristotle’s Golden Mean — through global surveillance, enforcement, ultimately carried out through conditional economics. Lenin’s Accounting and Control — on steroids.
The key insight was that transaction-level conditional infrastructure fundamentally changes the economic architecture from ‘permitted unless prohibited’ to ‘allowed only if compliant’.
That was the theory. What’s emerged since validates it completely:
The unified ledger is the technical implementation
Carstens’ language about programming rules into the ledger is the explicit intent
The pilots prove the capability
China’s deployment proves the timeline is now
The Financialisation of Compliance
The infrastructure documented above doesn’t just enable transaction-level control. It enables something far more insidious: the financialisation of compliance itself.
Once behavior is quantified through the unified ledger’s data layer — carbon compliance scores, purchasing patterns, verified credentials — that data becomes a predictable metric. And predictable metrics can be securitised. We already have sustainability-linked bonds27 where corporate yields adjust based on ESG performance. The infrastructure being built simply swaps ‘sustainable KPI’ or ‘corporate KPI’ for ‘population compliance KPI’28.
Here’s an example: A population’s aggregate compliance generates measurable cost savings (reduced waste management from recycling compliance, lower healthcare costs from ‘healthy’ purchasing patterns, avoided infrastructure costs from energy rationing). These savings become revenue streams. Revenue streams get packaged into securities. Investors buy bonds whose yields are tied to how well citizens comply with programmed conditions.
The result: Collateralised Behavior Obligations.
Moral-backed securities where human virtue becomes a liquid asset class.
Moses Hess’s ideological communism shrink wrapped as investment grades.
The perverse incentives are obvious once stated. Financial institutions gain a direct monetary stake in your behavior. Governments face bondholder pressure to tighten enforcement whenever compliance metrics slip. Your purchasing decisions don’t just determine what you can buy — they determine someone else’s portfolio yield.
But the feedback loops become truly dystopian when you follow the incentives. Bond investors don’t just profit from compliance — they gain rational economic motives to increase it. Want to protect your yield? Fund surveillance infrastructure to catch non-compliance. Invest in ‘social education’ campaigns (propaganda) to shift behavior. Lobby for tighter thresholds.
Optimise the human livestock.
This is the reduction of people to portfolio inputs — cattle whose behavior must be monitored, nudged, and optimised to generate returns. The system doesn’t just control transactions; it turns compliance into a profit center where your behavior is the underlying collateral, and improving your ‘performance’ becomes someone else’s investment strategy.
This isn’t speculation about distant futures. It’s the logical next step once the control mechanisms are normalised — and it’s why the question of democratic oversight isn’t academic but existential.
The Window For Debate
The original analysis ended by noting that resistance slows deployment but rarely stops systems with institutional momentum, technical capability, and elite consensus.
Here’s where we are now:
Institutional momentum: ✓ BIS blueprint, G20 backing, major central banks building
Technical capability: ✓ Pilots operational, MVP stage reached, China deployed
Elite consensus: ✓ Carstens explicitly advocating, no visible institutional opposition
The infrastructure is moving from PowerPoint presentations to protocol. The window for public awareness and debate isn’t closing — it’s starting to shut.
This is not about whether climate action is needed. This is about whether transaction-level conditional access to commerce should be the mechanism — and whether it should be built and deployed by unelected institutions with minimal public debate.
Yet, the question is no longer if this will be built, but what happens once it is. The technical capability exists. The institutional will is demonstrated. Parts of it are already operational.
And the overwhelming majority of people whose lives it will govern have no idea it’s happening.
Thanks ESC. I will integrate this into my next blog post. Support cash economy. Secure your essentials non-financially, to whatever degree may still be possible.
Grow vegetables.
Ride a bike that can carry things.
Be a neighbor.
Programmable CBDC tied to Digital ID is the word’s largest IT project(plural projects but with much similarities and even commonalities across implementations) by many orders of magnitude. It is being implemented at the national level and one can assume some ongoing level of integration and consolidation going forward, although the pace and configuration of such developments is impossible to predict. According to ChatGPT the implementation as of this date looks as follows:
😬 CBDC Fully implemented in Nigeria(2021), Jamaica(2022) and The Bahamas(2020)
😬Ongoing CBDC pilot projects or partially implemented: China, India, Russia, Turkey, Australia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Iran
😬134 countries representing ~98% of global GDP are engaged in CBDC exploration, with “dozens” in advanced stages of pilot implementation and/or development
Having worked for a Fortune 500 company in the US aerospace industry for 32 years, there was never a large IT project(during my career) that didn’t fall somewhere on the spectrum between mitigated and unmitigated disaster. There were generally 2 big spanners in the works: 1)Failure to adequately understand and capture the Requirements and 2) Unrealistic scope. Both of these fatal flaws operated under the Law of Unintended Consequences to produce effects at the working level that were insoluble, resulting in asynchronous rework which exacerbated the original problems. This in turn caused the implementation schedule to drag on and turn into a feedback loop with harmonics that could never be solved, resulting in either the death of the project or a radical scaling back into something with no resemblance to the original
All of this genius FinTech, Social Tech and AI generated help may have produced a world in which the above painted scenario and The Law of Unintended/Unforeseen Consequences no longer applies, but I have my serious doubts about that. That we rarely hear about glitches and system level bugs(recent Thailand case is an exception) only adds to my suspicion. The ambition of the the Globalist Oligarchs and the Tech Bros is truly monumental, much akin to their egos. I suspect the spanners will have their day