Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC): What It Is and the US Outlook

A central bank digital currency is a sovereign-issued digital liability of a country's central bank, denominated in the national unit of account and distinct from both physical cash and existing commercial bank deposits. This page covers the definition and structural mechanics of CBDCs, the policy forces driving their development, how they are classified against adjacent instruments, the contested tradeoffs they present, and the specific regulatory landscape shaping the US outlook. The Digital Currency Authority home provides broader context on the digital currency ecosystem within which CBDCs sit.

• Definition and scope
• Core mechanics or structure
• Causal relationships or drivers
• Classification boundaries
• Tradeoffs and tensions
• Common misconceptions
• Key considerations in CBDC design evaluation
• CBDC design variant reference matrix

Definition and scope

A CBDC represents a direct digital claim on a central bank — the same institutional counterparty that backs physical currency. Unlike a commercial bank deposit, which is a liability of a private institution, a CBDC carries zero counterparty default risk within the sovereign system. Unlike a stablecoin or cryptocurrency, it is issued and controlled by a government monetary authority rather than a private issuer or decentralized protocol.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) identifies two primary scope categories: retail CBDCs, accessible to households and businesses, and wholesale CBDCs, restricted to financial institutions for interbank settlement. As of the BIS CBDC Tracker data published through its monetary and economic department, more than 130 countries have been engaged in some stage of CBDC exploration, pilot, or deployment — representing over 98 percent of global GDP.

In the US context, no retail CBDC has been authorized or launched. The Federal Reserve has published research and conducted limited technical exploration, most visibly through the Federal Reserve's Project Hamilton collaboration with MIT (a joint effort of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston), which demonstrated a throughput capacity of over 1.7 million transactions per second in a prototype architecture.

Core mechanics or structure

A CBDC system requires at minimum four functional layers: issuance infrastructure controlled by the central bank, a ledger or registry recording ownership, a distribution mechanism connecting the currency to end users, and an access layer (wallets or accounts) through which transactions occur.

Ledger architecture choices fall along a spectrum. A centralized ledger maintained exclusively by the central bank offers maximum control and auditability. A distributed ledger — potentially permissioned rather than public — can improve resilience and allow controlled participation by intermediaries. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's Phase 1 Project Hamilton report (2022) tested both transaction-based and account-based models at scale.

Distribution models define whether intermediaries (banks, payment providers) are involved:
- Direct model: The central bank maintains individual end-user accounts directly.
- Indirect (two-tier) model: Commercial banks or licensed intermediaries hold CBDC on behalf of customers, with the central bank settling at the wholesale level.
- Hybrid model: End-user claims are on the central bank, but intermediaries handle customer-facing operations and onboarding.

The Federal Reserve has indicated a preference for any US retail CBDC to operate through a two-tier structure, preserving commercial bank intermediation rather than disintermediating the private banking system.

Programmability is an optional technical layer allowing conditional logic — for example, expiration dates on stimulus disbursements or restrictions on use category. This feature is simultaneously the source of the strongest policy interest and the strongest civil liberties concern.

Causal relationships or drivers

Four documented forces have accelerated CBDC development globally and shaped the US policy debate.

Declining cash usage: The BIS and central banks in the European Union, Sweden (Riksbank), and the UK (Bank of England) have cited declining physical cash transaction share as a driver for maintaining public access to a risk-free sovereign payment instrument. Sweden's Riksbank reported cash payments represented less than 9 percent of retail transactions by 2022 (Riksbank, The Riksbank's e-krona project).

Private stablecoin and crypto proliferation: The 2019 announcement of Facebook's Libra project (later Diem) accelerated formal CBDC work across the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the People's Bank of China. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets issued a report in November 2021 identifying stablecoin systemic risks and implicitly framing a CBDC as a potential policy alternative.

Financial inclusion: The Federal Reserve's own research has documented that approximately 4.5 percent of US households were unbanked as of 2021 (FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 2021). A retail CBDC with low-friction access could theoretically extend sovereign payment access to populations excluded from commercial banking.

Geopolitical competition: China's digital yuan (e-CNY) entered large-scale pilot phases beginning in 2020, distributed across 23 cities and tested at scale during the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. This development informed Executive Order 14067 (March 2022), signed by President Biden, which directed federal agencies including the Treasury, the Fed, and the National Security Council to assess the implications of a US CBDC and report findings within defined timeframes.

The regulatory context for digital currency in the United States spans multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdiction over any future CBDC framework, including the Federal Reserve, the Treasury's Office of Financial Research, the CFTC, and the SEC.

Classification boundaries

CBDCs are frequently confused with adjacent instruments. Precise classification requires distinguishing along three axes: issuer, liability structure, and access.

CBDC vs. commercial bank deposits: Commercial bank deposits are liabilities of private institutions, protected by FDIC insurance up to $250,000 per depositor per institution category (FDIC, Deposit Insurance). A CBDC is a direct central bank liability with no coverage ceiling because the issuer is itself the sovereign monetary authority.

CBDC vs. stablecoins: Stablecoins are private-sector instruments pegged to reference assets, issued by entities such as Circle (USDC) or Tether. They carry issuer counterparty risk, are not legal tender, and operate outside the central bank balance sheet. Legislative proposals in Congress — including the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act and the House Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act — have attempted to create a regulated stablecoin framework but have not been enacted as of the date of this writing.

CBDC vs. existing Fed accounts: The Federal Reserve already maintains reserve accounts for member banks, which are digital liabilities of the Fed. A retail CBDC extends this digital central bank liability to non-bank entities for the first time, representing a structural change rather than a technical one.

Wholesale vs. retail: Wholesale CBDCs operate within existing interbank infrastructure and pose fewer novel policy questions. Retail CBDCs — which would place sovereign digital money directly in the hands of individuals and businesses — raise the privacy, intermediation, and monetary policy questions that dominate US debate.

Tradeoffs and tensions

The CBDC design space involves genuine, documented policy conflicts without settled resolution.

Privacy vs. auditability: A CBDC transaction ledger maintained by or accessible to a central bank creates a payment surveillance architecture with no precedent in physical cash. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Cato Institute have both published formal opposition on First and Fourth Amendment grounds. The BIS has published privacy-preserving technical architectures using zero-knowledge proofs, but no jurisdiction has deployed these at production scale.

Disintermediation risk: If consumers shift deposits from commercial banks to CBDC accounts, banks lose a low-cost funding base. The Federal Reserve estimates that even a 10 percent shift of household deposits would reduce commercial bank funding by approximately $700 billion — a figure that would stress credit availability for mortgages and business loans. This structural risk is the primary reason the Fed has publicly endorsed two-tier distribution.

Monetary policy transmission: Programmable CBDCs could allow direct interest rate application at the wallet level, theoretically improving monetary policy transmission speed. The same capability could enable negative interest rates on consumer holdings, a politically and economically contested tool.

Concentration of federal power: Executive Order 14067 generated legislative pushback. The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, introduced in the 118th Congress by Rep. Tom Emmer, would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC directly to individuals without explicit Congressional authorization, reflecting a separation-of-powers tension between executive monetary policy authority and Congressional appropriations oversight.

Common misconceptions

Misconception: A CBDC would replace the dollar.
The dollar is already primarily digital in the form of commercial bank deposits and Fed reserves. A CBDC would change the liability structure of digital dollars, not the currency itself.

Misconception: The Federal Reserve is building a CBDC.
The Federal Reserve has stated explicitly it would not proceed without clear support from the executive branch and authorizing legislation from Congress (Federal Reserve, Money and Payments: The US Dollar in the Digital Age, January 2022). Research and proof-of-concept work do not constitute deployment authorization.

Misconception: A CBDC is the same as cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are decentralized, supply-capped, and governed by protocol rather than institution. A CBDC is centrally issued, fully supply-controlled by the monetary authority, and has no algorithmic independence. The two instruments share a digital-ledger form factor but differ in every meaningful policy dimension.

Misconception: CBDCs require blockchain.
Project Hamilton's architecture demonstrated that a high-throughput CBDC could be built on non-distributed, non-blockchain infrastructure. The ledger model is a design choice, not a technical prerequisite. The BIS has noted in multiple working papers that permissioned distributed ledgers offer no performance advantage over centralized systems for most CBDC use cases.

Misconception: The US is behind and losing the CBDC race.
The "race" framing mischaracterizes the policy question. China's e-CNY operates within a different legal and governance context. The Federal Reserve's mandate is not speed of deployment but monetary and financial stability. The Fed's deliberate pace reflects that mandate, not institutional incapacity.

Key considerations in CBDC design evaluation

The following phases describe how central banks and legislative bodies have structured formal CBDC assessment processes, as documented by BIS, the Federal Reserve, and the Bank of England.

1. Define the policy objective — establish whether the primary purpose is financial inclusion, payment system resilience, stablecoin competition, or monetary policy transmission improvement. Each objective implies different design constraints.
2. Select the access model — determine whether end users hold direct central bank liabilities (direct model), intermediated liabilities (indirect), or hybrid-tier arrangements.
3. Assess ledger architecture — evaluate centralized versus distributed options against throughput requirements, privacy architecture, and auditability standards.
4. Establish legal authorization framework — identify whether existing central bank enabling legislation permits retail CBDC issuance or whether new statute is required. In the US context, Federal Reserve Act provisions governing currency issuance are the primary reference.
5. Define AML/KYC integration points — any retail CBDC must comply with Bank Secrecy Act requirements (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.) administered by FinCEN, including customer identification, suspicious activity reporting, and recordkeeping obligations.
6. Conduct interoperability assessment — evaluate compatibility with existing FedNow, ACH, and SWIFT messaging infrastructure to avoid parallel payment system fragmentation.
7. Develop privacy architecture specification — document data minimization principles, access controls for law enforcement, and technical anonymity thresholds consistent with constitutional constraints.
8. Run bounded pilot — limit initial deployment by geography, participant type, or transaction volume with defined success metrics before broader rollout.

CBDC design variant reference matrix

References

• Bank for International Settlements — CBDC research and working papers
• Federal Reserve — Money and Payments: The US Dollar in the Digital Age (January 2022)
• Federal Reserve Bank of Boston — Project Hamilton Phase 1 Report (2022)
• Executive Order 14067 — Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets (March 2022)
• US Treasury — President's Working Group Report on Stablecoins (November 2021)
• FDIC — National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (2021)
• FDIC — Deposit Insurance Overview
• Sveriges Riksbank — e-Krona Project
• FinCEN — Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5311
• BIS Working Paper 880 — Rise of the Central Bank Digital Currencies

Read Next