[nirimda]

> Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government

I don't understand this sentence.

In political discourse, "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament. If the people can't control the currency through parliament and government, how do you stop private or foreign interests from taking control?

My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.

[akira2501]

> "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament.

Is a free press in the hands of the people? Is it controlled by a parliament? The right to it may be recognized there, but I think it makes the definition a bit broader than your casting.

> My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.

It's only necessarily when the government refuses to take action against monopolies and cartels. This is a rather cynical take, though it may currently ring true in our modern environment.

[taylorius]

I understand it to mean that in some sense it is not controllable (like cryptocurrencies aim to be). CBDCs will be a tyrannical state's dream.

[_milgram224]

What an insane takeaway. "The hands of the people" could not possibly be clearer. To equate that with essentially "the government" shows how incredibly effective the state's propaganda mills are on people such as yourself.

Also, why are the "strongest and richest" objectionable to you, but not the government? That statement describes the government perfectly, and the main thing that distinguishes them from individuals who are privately wealthy is holding a monopoly on violence that's used to forcibly extract wealth while producing nothing in return.

We need a separation of money and state.

[hndamien]

Have you heard of Bitcoin?