[iso8859-1]

Why this dichotomy between "non-physical cash" and "decentral currency"? These things are linked, but strictly speaking you don't have to choose between them.

Abolishing physical cash does not imply migrating to a decentralised currency. But migrating to a decentralised currency is probably only possible by abolishing physical cash; I don't see gold coins coming back.

So, how is it different to have your money controlled by a private key, and nobody having the power to seize those money? Ask every single person that has had their account frozen. Whether you think it happens for just reasons or not, surely you agree that it isn't the same as having an ecosystem of digital centrally issued money? Not just issued, but also seized, through courts and police.

[adament]

Yes but exactly because the decentralized currency is much more difficult to control and explicitly circumvents parts of current banking regulations, I have a hard time fathoming that policy makers and central banks would advocate decentralized currencies. The post that I was replying to seemed to suggest that CBDCs would be decentralized or in some way inherently different from the centralized digital settlement of transfers that exists in many countries today, and I want to understand why that should be the case? Why would CBDCs work more like decentralized cryptographic currencies than the current financial system?

I am not passing a judgment on whether decentralized currencies are good, but I do not understand why central banks would move in that direction.