Seems likely they will (or) are going the NGO route and co-opting a dev team to accomplish this, most of points are salient why the heck would they use a currently open ledger system for a CBDC. Central banks hardly publish their transaction receipts aside from basic macro data, they definitely wouldn’t want a ledger system that fully reports on where funding is going especially when it comes to national defense spending. Could you imagine seeing a wallet for DHS transactions in the post 9/11 US, don’t think so. This means they have a higher complexity than they anticipated, just building a blockchain payment system with high TPS isn’t going to cut it, if they create an open ledger system it will be firewalled (two tiered) with a general public open chain and an intergovernmental private backend. That entails combining something like a monero with XRP, which isn’t a simple project unless they just had two separate system that are bridged. It’s possible they would build on top of another chain or integrate as a base layer since they’re far behind the curve on building a complete ecosystem all at once like current layer 0/1 projects, but more likely they only want a programmable payment system with limited layer 2 systems and dapps for better security. All the fancy defi protocols and independent dapps on ETH would just be a nuisance to host along side a CBDC payment system. They’re more likely to prioritize security and speed over functionality, ETH is a highly functional (and dysfunctional) mix of all sorts of projects mashed together.

Dude, I woke up an hour ago. Ffs.

Keep bitching about it and I’ll make effort to go back and hose them all.

Your original comment was approved. I didn’t see your second one until now.

I approve comments when I get to them. It’s not like I have a team of interns on staff sitting around waiting to moderate this stuff.

Get a load of the guy who thinks CBDCs are going to be about privacy… lol