[dogman144]

Yeah that's sort of silly. The implications of a non-BTC-based standard with the intent of enabling cross-border more effectively is: - IMFcoin, UNCoin(and the conspiracies around global banking cartel actually take flight because yeah actually that would be nuts) - EUcoin, USAcoin, ChCoin (imagine the geopolitics...)

A digital currency that directly fits the digital use-case being described by these papers written by central banks, that is in turn ignored by these papers, is sort of like talking about WW2 without mentioning Germany's role.

I can definitely understand the aversion given the implications of a non-CB controlled digicoin, but just ignoring its existence really blows a hole in the intellectual rigor of these whitepapers.

Ultimately, the network adoption will play out as it plays out. We don't have USAweb and RUSweb (maybe moving toward that, but different topic), we have the decentralized, multi-party, ICANN/IETF/private sector/public sector-led The Internet. When you track how the Internet came to be, and how it's actually controlled now, it starts to look a lot like the Bitcoin network's growth plan at the moment. What will be will be. Once it gets analyzed as a network protocol with digital native payments, vs. a digital currency on the regular internet, the blind spots in BTC criticism start to show.