Banking Giants and New York Fed Start 12-week Digital Dollar Pilot (reuters.com) 57
Global banking giants are starting a 12-week digital dollar pilot with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the participants announced on Tuesday. From a report: Citigroup, HSBC, Mastercard and Wells Fargo are among the financial companies participating in the experiment alongside the New York Fed's innovation center, they said in a statement. The project, which is called the regulated liability network, will be conducted in a test environment and use simulated data, the New York Fed said. The pilot will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And if they want to know how to speed up payments, why not just ask pretty much any other country? (I'm not kidding - bank transfers in the US can take literally days).
Re: (Score:1)
And if they want to know how to speed up payments, why not just ask pretty much any other country?
They don't even need to ask anyone. There is no secret, there is no technological lack, it isn't even about process - just leglistate that they have to complete the transaction within a specified time insted of holding onto the cash in transit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I sell you my bicycle we tap our phones together and you transfer 100 digibucks from your wallet to my wallet, anonymously.
Basically the privacy of a cryptocurrency with the strength of a greenback.
All of the other digital money transfers leave a digital paper trail.
What's wrong with the PRIVACY of a greenback? (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything, the actual paper greenback is only more private, than the cryptocurrency [cointelegraph.com].
If you really are paranoid, wear gloves, when handling paper money, that's all you need for privacy...
Re: (Score:2)
Not all blockchains expose transactions between wallets.
I don't know how they do it, but Monero is one example.
Re: What's wrong with the PRIVACY of a greenback? (Score:2)
WARNING: Big step towards elimination of cash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They want to be like Canada. Shutdown accounts. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Name one modern Western government that allows people to fund terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
re: deflation (Score:2)
Isn't it interesting/telling, though, that governments despite deflation, despite the fact that it's *inflation* that really balloons the national debt?
If they felt any kind of fiscal responsibility to the American people, they'd be really concerned that inflation causes their interest rates on their debt to skyrocket. That, in turn, means the tax revenue collected is less useful for any initiatives benefiting people because it's all servicing that interest on their deficit.
The fact they don't seem to mind
Re: (Score:2)
*despise deflation
(Love how Slashdot has no way to edit posts once posted.)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it interesting/telling, though, that governments despite deflation, despite the fact that it's *inflation* that really balloons the national debt?
Deflation turns out in fact to be worse than inflation, if it actually were to happen. Inflation make people want to spend money (because money is worth less the longer you hold onto it). Deflation makes people want to not spend money.
But that problem has been solved. Nobody "despises" deflation any more, because it only happens with hard currency, and we don't use hard currency any more. Governments rather than "despising" deflation, governments would love to see deflation, because they can solve that pr
Re: (Score:2)
Better Test of Deflation's Effects (Score:2)
This should really be studied in the modern context since it may w
Re: (Score:2)
As others in the thread have pointed out the government is absolutely hell bent for leather against deflation.
Yes, but I believe the reason for that is that when deflation has happened in the past it is really destructive for the economy i.e. the empirical evidence is that deflation is extremely bad because, in general, people do put off buying things because they know it will be cheaper in the future which leads to over-supply depressing prices more. The way it gets solved is that companies go bust, tanking your economy but reducing supply so prices start to rise again.
I think it is an interesting question to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already do that. This is inter-bank settlement. Think of it as a replacement for the $50,000 and $100,000 bills of old.
Re: (Score:3)
There already is inter-bank settlement. In US it's FedWire and ACH.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and according to Kitco [kitco.com], this is a replacement for those.
ACH sucks and is archaic. It needs to go away.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's just this ..."
"It's only so that we can ..."
"It won't ever be used for anything but ..."
Re: (Score:1)
For most people, money already is digital. I'm self employed and the majority of the "money" I receive takes the form of credit card payments and checks (which I bring to my bank and they turn 'em into a number in my account). I don't bother withdrawing cash, because at everywhere I shop, paying with cash means missing out on cash back from my credit card (which I pay off every month, so it costs me nothing to have), or missing out on savings that the merchant provides when you use their preferred form of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're overlooking the fact that member-owned credit unions are a thing. Not every "bank" is an evil monolithic corporation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, even without cash, I will move my money away from a bank that gives me negative interest. There are other places to put your money (ie, buy stocks or a house or something. There are options for every income level).
Don't blame the banks (Score:3)
Not in their side — the banking establishment is fine with cash. It is the government, that hates cash — suspecting (correctly), that it is not getting some taxes as well as control over our lives.
It is the government, that pressures banks into these measures. It is also the government, that allows police to confiscate cash [thehill.com] without even accusing you of anything, much less proving the accusation
Banks aren't going to do negative interest rates (Score:4, Insightful)
There are good reasons to no do away with cash (we screw over the poor in America, and nobody has found a way to make money off the unbanked without completely screwing them over), but worrying about negative interest rates ain't one of them.
If you're gonna freak out about conspiracy theories the Republican party is currently trying to install a dictator right out in the open, and they only just barely failed to take over in most states. They took Florida entirely, and it's a major swing state. You have perfectly good, real conspiracies to worry about. No sense making ones up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read "USGOV will print money even faster" (Score:1)
Pilot project help (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they can get those guys who ran crypto exchanges to help out, they seem to have some free time now -- Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Man... I was hoping that Dogecoin was going to become the world reserve currency, just like those guys on Twitter promised it would!
burn it down (Score:3)
Well crypto is doing a fine job of burning itself to the ground. Central banks should follow them?
Allow me to make a prediction (Score:3)
I do not know anything about this other than the summary. I have not read the article, nor any other article about this.
Nonetheless, I feel qualified to offer two predictions:
1.) This will wind up making the banks more money at the expense of everyone else. It will likely take the form of some hopelessly complicated and obtuse racketeering scheme that will destabilize the entire economy. The government will step in to regulate, because obviously they need to get a slice of that delicious racketeering pie.
2.) This will be a privacy disaster.
Would have made sense backwards too (what it is) (Score:3)
Your predictions show that, as you said, you know nothing about the system.
The system allows Wells Fargo to pay Citigroup whatever they owe to Citigroup without waiting overnight. In the current system, they settle up every night. The new system is testing faster settlement between large banks.
How is this a privacy disaster? How would it cost you? How would it destabilize the economy? Answers:
It isn't.
It wouldn't.
It wouldn't.
Suppose person A writes a check to person B.
If they are both customers of Citibank
Great way to resurrect cryptocurrencies... (Score:2)
With the fear of a cashless society and negative interest rates, where someone's cash has to be attached to some bank who can take from it at will, something like this, assuming it will wind up making it out of this pilot (trust me... it will), is just going to be the lightning bolt that hits the carcass of cryptocurrencies, stirring that monster back to life.
When (not if) this stuff comes down to the consumer and cash is phased out, cryptocurrencies will have a (legit) place -- a place where someone can st
Re: (Score:2)
bye bye what little privacy you have (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trickle Up Economics (Score:1)
This sounds like the definition of trickle up economics. You are forced to keep your money in the system and the system is intrinsically designed to continuously transfer your wealth to help people who can already help themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Sort of like what happened under trickle down?
Re: (Score:2)
none of it matters when the petrodollar fails (Score:2)
With changing from paper fiat money to electronic fiat money, they only thing you gain is government control over how easy it is to track your purchases. That's it.
That said, none of it matters if we let the petrodollar crash. Various forces are very hard at work in trying to crash the petrodollar, so much so that we just elected a president that literally ran on a platform that targeted/attacked the fossil fuel industry. The general public has little to no knowledge of what actually makes our fiat curr
Speed up payments?? (Score:3)
The pilot will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.
Anybody with half a brain cell already knew it cannot. Which fool thought that updating a blockchain could be faster than a COBOL program running on a backend big iron?
If anyone said this is about transaction performance, they are lying.
What is the purpose of this? (Score:2)
Europe is moving to instant money transfers without all this. It just requires a good banking communication infrastructure and kicking slow banks in the behind.