Online vs. Offline CBDCs — The Privacy Battle Dividing the EU

ccn.comPubblicato 2025-12-25Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-25

Introduzione

The EU is divided over the design of its proposed digital euro, with a key conflict emerging between online and offline functionality. The Council of the EU supports a hybrid model that includes both online and offline capabilities. In contrast, privacy-focused members of the European Parliament advocate for an offline-only version, arguing it offers stronger, cash-like privacy by enabling peer-to-peer transactions without centralized tracking. They warn that an online system could allow excessive surveillance of consumer spending. The European Central Bank and European Commission favor the hybrid approach but face opposition from data protection authorities concerned about data minimization. With negotiations set for 2026, the outcome will determine the balance between privacy and functionality in the EU's digital currency.

Key Takeaways

The Council of the EU has adopted a digital euro negotiating position that favors online and offline functionality.
However, privacy hawks in the European Parliament are pushing for an offline-only digital currency.
As the two sides prepare for negotiations in 2026, privacy has emerged as the key battle line.

As the EU’s digital euro inches closer to realization, policymakers are split between two camps with competing visions for the central bank digital currency.

In one model, offline CBDCs behave like digital cash, with strong privacy built in by design.

However, another, more ambitious approach envisions the digital euro as a comprehensive online payment instrument that offers the same functionality as cards and digital wallets.

New Trending Crypto Wallet Offers

Tangem

promotions

Trusted & Secure

Coins

Claim Offer

BitBox

promotions

Trusted, Secure & Crypto Friendly

Coins

–

Claim Offer

Blockstream

promotions

Trusted, Secure & Crypto Friendly

Coins

–

Claim Offer

The Two Digital Euros: Online Accounts vs. Offline Tokens

The distinction between online and offline versions of the CBDC emerged early on in discussions over the digital euro, with a string of EU policy documents exploring the pros and cons of each model since 2020.

An online digital euro would function like today’s electronic payments, with accounts tied to individual consumers and businesses, and transactions validated through infrastructure operated by banks and other regulated Eurosystem participants.

Meanwhile, offline CBDCs more closely resemble traditional cryptocurrencies, with tokens that move between wallets on a peer-to-peer basis, eliminating the need to update balances on a centralized ledger.

Privacy Hawks Favor Offline-Only CBDC

In the debate over online versus offline digital euros, privacy is a central political constraint.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has repeatedly framed privacy as “by design,” arguing that it wants the digital euro to meet very high privacy standards compared with existing electronic payment rails.

But that prospect holds much more weight with an offline CBDC, which promises a cash-like degree of anonymity, at least for small payments.

Alongside the European Commission, the ECB favors a hybrid system, with larger payments requiring online validation, but some offline functionality for low-value payments.

However, after the Commission outlined a proposal for online and offline functionality in 2023, privacy hawks in the European Parliament pushed back, arguing that online CBDCs could grant centralized authorities unprecedented visibility into consumers’ daily spending.

They argued that the proposal’s privacy guarantees for online CBDCs lacked legal grounding and would require users to simply trust that their payment data wouldn’t be accessed by centralized authorities.

That view is backed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), which have warned that the systematic logging of online payments risks violating EU data-minimization principles.

Council vs. Parliament

Since 2023, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have increasingly rallied around an offline-first, or even offline-only, digital euro.

But on Dec. 19, the EU Council representing Member States backed a negotiating position that more closely aligns with the European Commission’s 2023 proposal.

Now, the EU’s two decision-making branches are on a collision course.

With negotiations set to take place throughout 2026, the future of the digital euro project rests on whether or not the Council can convince enough MEPs to back online CBDCs.

Critics of online digital euro payments can be found across the political spectrum.

With diverse parliamentary alliances expected to push for strong privacy protections for any online functionality, the Council will likely need to offer legal guarantees that have been absent from the discussion so far.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat are the two competing models for the digital euro being debated in the EU?

AThe two competing models are an online digital euro, which functions like electronic payments with accounts tied to individuals and validated through bank infrastructure, and an offline digital euro, which operates like digital cash with peer-to-peer transactions and no need for a centralized ledger.

QWhy do privacy advocates in the European Parliament favor an offline-only digital euro?

APrivacy advocates favor an offline-only digital euro because it offers cash-like anonymity for transactions, especially for small payments, and prevents centralized authorities from having unprecedented visibility into consumers' daily spending, which they argue is a risk with online CBDCs.

QWhat is the position of the EU Council regarding the digital euro's functionality?

AThe EU Council adopted a negotiating position on December 19 that favors a hybrid system with both online and offline functionality, aligning closely with the European Commission's 2023 proposal.

QWhat concerns have data protection authorities raised about the online digital euro model?

AThe European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) have warned that the systematic logging of online payments risks violating EU data-minimization principles and lacks strong legal grounding for privacy guarantees.

QWhen are negotiations between the EU Council and the European Parliament on the digital euro expected to take place?

ANegotiations between the EU Council and the European Parliament are set to take place throughout 2026 to resolve the differences in their positions on the digital euro's design and functionality.

Letture associate

The Largest IPO in History Ignites Heated Debate: Is SpaceX Worth $1.77 Trillion?

SpaceX's potential IPO is priced at $135 per share, aiming to raise $75 billion and valuing the company at approximately $1.77 trillion, which would make it the largest IPO in history. This valuation has sparked intense debate among investors. Bullish analysts, including major underwriters Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, argue the valuation is justified by SpaceX's long-term potential. They see it not just as a rocket company but as a future leader in space infrastructure, with key growth drivers being Starlink satellite internet, low-cost rocket launches, and future AI-related ventures. They project revenues reaching hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars by 2030-2040. ARK Invest's model suggests a 2030 enterprise value could reach $2.5 trillion. Bearish analysts from independent research firms like Morningstar, PitchBook, and New Constructs contend the IPO price is excessively high, already pricing in unrealistic future growth. Using DCF and sum-of-the-parts models, they estimate fair value between $780 billion and $1.7 trillion, significantly below the IPO target. They highlight risks such as the speculative nature of AI projections, over-dependence on Elon Musk, high growth expectations, and corporate governance concerns. Trefis set a target price of just $79 per share. While both sides acknowledge SpaceX's unique position in commercial space, the core disagreement centers on whether the $135 share price offers a reasonable margin of safety or is overly optimistic. Despite the valuation controversy, reported strong demand for the IPO indicates significant market interest.

marsbit46 min fa

The Largest IPO in History Ignites Heated Debate: Is SpaceX Worth $1.77 Trillion?

marsbit46 min fa

Japan’s Largest Banks Eye FY2026 Stablecoin Rollout Amid Regulatory Push

Japan's three largest banks—MUFG Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Mizuho Bank—are advancing plans to launch a jointly-issued yen-pegged stablecoin by the end of fiscal year 2026 (March 31, 2027). They have established a voluntary council to develop the operational framework, governance, and issuance infrastructure for the token, which will be issued under a trust agreement. The move aligns with Japan's regulatory push to expand its yen-based digital asset market, following 2022 amendments to the Payment Services Act that restrict stablecoin issuance to licensed entities like banks and trust companies. The banks, which began exploring this initiative in late 2025, aim to support a wide range of use cases and are considering future collaborations with other financial institutions. This development occurs alongside other yen-stablecoin launches and recent political proposals to promote such tokens for settlement in Asia.

bitcoinist1 h fa

Japan’s Largest Banks Eye FY2026 Stablecoin Rollout Amid Regulatory Push

bitcoinist1 h fa

After the Passage of the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act, What Is the Correct Architecture for On-Chain Yield?

The article discusses the evolution of on-chain credit, distinguishing three markets: overcollateralized crypto lending, unsecured lending (largely unsuccessful), and asset-backed credit (ABC). ABC, backed by identifiable real-world collateral with legal recourse, is identified as the fastest-growing category and the only one credibly addressing adverse selection—the core problem in credit where the riskiest borrowers self-select. Current growth in on-chain Real World Assets (RWAs), particularly tokenized private credit funds (e.g., Maple Finance, Centrifuge), is substantial but often merely "wraps" existing fund structures, inheriting their risks rather than solving adverse selection at the protocol level. The regulatory landscape is a key driver, with the US GENIUS Act (prohibiting stablecoin issuers from paying yield) and the proposed CLARITY Act (closing loopholes on indirect yield) set to redefine permissible yield-bearing products. This makes vaults (like ERC-4626) the critical architecture—they become the primary compliant vehicle for delivering yield, functioning as issuance, disclosure, distribution, and recovery mechanisms. The author's thesis is that the correct post-GENIUS/CLARITY architecture involves building ABC solutions where credit assessment, structure, and recovery are encoded directly into the smart contract vault layer, moving beyond mere tokenized fund wrappers to solve adverse selection fundamentally and ensure regulatory compliance.

Foresight News1 h fa

After the Passage of the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act, What Is the Correct Architecture for On-Chain Yield?

Foresight News1 h fa

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Anthropic's New Model Fable Sparks Controversy by Restricting Biosafety Research, US CPI Soars to 4.2%, a Three-Year High

**Summary of TechFlow Intelligence Report:** The newsletter covers several key tech and finance developments. In AI, Anthropic's new Fable model faced backlash for secretly limiting biomedical research capabilities and enforcing a 30-day data retention policy, prompting the company to promise more transparent adjustments. In a related story, Anthropic's founder revealed his departure from OpenAI was due to dishonesty from Sam Altman, not safety concerns. Meanwhile, OpenAI is considering significant price cuts to compete with Anthropic, potentially sparking a price war. In crypto/Web3, BlackRock filed a new amendment for a yield-generating Bitcoin ETF, while Bank of America's CEO warned that stablecoin yields could drain trillions from traditional banks. U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis advocated for the U.S. to officially accumulate Bitcoin reserves. In hardware, Nvidia released the DiffusionGemma-2-6B image model optimized for efficient inference, and AMD promoted its unified memory architecture to challenge Nvidia's dominance. TSMC's CFO hinted at possible price increases due to soaring AI chip demand. A major legal ruling in Germany held Google legally responsible for inaccurate information generated by its AI Overviews feature. Google Chrome also moved to fully block ad-blocker workarounds like uBlock Origin. Macroeconomic headlines included U.S. CPI rising to 4.2% (a 3-year high) and Iran's complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, raising oil price and inflation fears. South Korean markets saw continued volatility with massive foreign capital outflow. Other notable stories: Microsoft expanded its Copilot AI assistant "Mico" globally; a study found r/wallstreetbets users' stock picks outperformed Wall Street; a fully autonomous drone killed a human soldier for the first time, raising AI ethics concerns; and a Chinese hospital used brain-computer interface technology to help a blind person "see." The overarching theme connects debates over AI boundaries and responsibility (Anthropic's restrictions, Google's liability, lethal autonomous drones) with real-world economic and geopolitical turmoil (inflation, Strait of Hormuz closure, market instability), highlighting the tense interplay between technological advancement and global chaos.

marsbit1 h fa

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Anthropic's New Model Fable Sparks Controversy by Restricting Biosafety Research, US CPI Soars to 4.2%, a Three-Year High

marsbit1 h fa

Alibaba's Yet Another New Business Division: What Signal Does It Send?

Alibaba has established a new "Token Foundry" business unit, merging its Tongyi large model division and Future Life Lab. Led directly by Group CEO Wu Yongming, this marks the company's third significant AI organizational reshuffle in 2026, following the creation of the Alibaba Token Hub (ATH) and a Group Technology Committee. The move signals a strategic shift from consolidating AI resources to accelerating productization and commercialization. The "Token Foundry" name reflects Alibaba's ambition to become a foundational supplier in the AI era, focusing on model development and commercial application. Key teams, including those behind the high-performing HappyHorse video generation model, have been integrated into the new unit. Concurrently, Zhou Jingren, architect of the Qwen model series, has been appointed Group Chief Scientist to lead a new AI Future Research Institute, focusing on long-term technological breakthroughs like Agent capabilities. This restructuring creates a clear four-layer AI architecture within Alibaba: the research institute for frontier exploration, Token Foundry for core models and commercialization, MaaS for platform services, and business units like Qianwen (C端) and Wukong (B端) for end-user applications. The adjustments align with a global trend among tech giants like Google and Microsoft to centralize AI leadership under the CEO and deeply integrate research with business units. The urgency is driven by a narrowing competitive window. Alibaba has announced its AI business is now entering a commercialization phase, with AI-related revenue seeing triple-digit growth for eleven consecutive quarters. The company faces intense competition in the MaaS (Model-as-a-Service) sector from rivals like ByteDance and Tencent. The Token Foundry initiative represents Alibaba's effort to streamline execution and enhance competitiveness in this critical, fast-evolving landscape.

marsbit2 h fa

Alibaba's Yet Another New Business Division: What Signal Does It Send?

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures