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

ccn.comPublished on 2025-12-25Last updated on 2025-12-25

Abstract

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
Sponsored
Disclosure
We sometimes use affiliate links in our content, when clicking on those we might receive a commission at no extra cost to you. By using this website you agree to our terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Tangem

promotions
Trusted & Secure
Coins
111
  • Aave
  • Uniswap
  • GMX
  • Pendle
  • Ondo
  • Ankr
  • Fantom
  • Synthetix
  • Curve DAO Token
  • Compound
  • Maker
  • THORChain
  • Stacks
  • Arweave
  • Sui
  • Immutable
  • Optimism
  • Arbitrum
  • VeChain
  • The Sandbox
  • Decentraland
  • Axie Infinity
  • Render
  • The Graph
  • Chiliz
  • Helium
  • PAX Gold
  • Bitcoin
  • Ethereum
  • Tether
  • USD Coin
  • Solana
  • Ripple
  • Dogecoin
  • Cardano
  • Toncoin
  • Shiba Inu
  • Avalanche
  • TRON
  • Chainlink
  • Polygon Matic
  • Polkadot
  • Wrapped Bitcoin
  • Litecoin
  • Dai
  • NEAR Protocol
  • Bitcoin Cash
  • Monero
  • Stellar
  • Cosmos
  • Filecoin
  • Ethereum Classic
  • Aptos
  • Cronos
  • Binance USD
  • Neo
  • APEcoin
  • Gala
  • Theta Network
  • Wrapped Ethereum
  • OKB
  • Pepe
  • Mantle
  • First Digital USD
  • Kaspa
  • Bittensor
  • Celestia
  • XDC Network
  • Artificial Superintelligence Alliance
  • Jupiter
  • Quant
  • Worldcoin
  • PayPal USD
  • Bonk
  • Rocket Pool ETH
  • Flare
  • Tether Gold
  • Sei
  • JITO
  • JasmyCoin
  • PancakeSwap
  • Core
  • Ethereum Name Service
  • SushiSwap
  • 1inch Network
  • Tezos
  • Algorand
  • Flow
  • Trust Wallet Token
  • KuCoin Token
  • MultiversX
  • GateToken
  • Zcash
  • IOTA
  • Basic Attention Token
  • Enjin Coin
  • Frax
  • Ethena
  • Ethena USDe
  • Ethena Staked USDe
  • Kusama
  • Celo
  • STEPN
  • Gemini Dollar
  • UNUS SED LEO
  • Internet Computer
  • EOS
  • BitTorrent
  • Mina
  • Dash
  • Zilliqa
  • Casper
  • TrueUSD
  • Floki Inu
  • IoTex
  • Build'N'Build
No result
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.

Top Trending Crypto Articles
  • Best Exchanges Check Out Our Recommended Exchanges Here
  • Buy Crypto Fast How To Buy Crypto with a Credit Card Now
  • Safe Crypto Gambling See Our Picks for the Best Crypto Gambling Sites

Related Questions

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.

Related Reads

Analyzing the Impact of AI on Economic Growth and Productivity

**Title: Analyzing AI's Impact on Economic Growth and Productivity** This article examines three contrasting views on AI's influence on economic growth and productivity. **The Optimistic View** posits that AI, especially through automating R&D ("recursive self-improvement"), could dramatically accelerate growth, even triggering a technological "singularity" with explosive, potentially infinite, economic expansion. **The Moderate/Mainstream View** acknowledges AI's productivity benefits but emphasizes significant real-world constraints that could limit its impact. These include: limited cost savings per task, structural ceilings on which jobs and industries are "exposed" to AI, adoption bottlenecks (e.g., compute, energy, regulatory hurdles), and the "weak link" effect where non-automatable tasks cap overall gains. Consequently, the realized AI dividend may be far lower than optimistic projections, with estimates typically ranging from 0.1% to 1.3% annual productivity growth. **The Pessimistic View** stems from two strands. The first aligns with the moderate view but applies extremely conservative assumptions about task exposure and efficiency gains, yielding minimal projected impact. The second introduces a demand-side critique: if AI primarily replaces rather than augments labor, it could depress labor's share of income, weaken consumer demand, and create a "demand trap" that ultimately stifles growth, unless offset by redistribution policies. **The authors' assessment** is nuanced: * **Short-term (1-2 years):** AI will support growth primarily through investment spending, not significant productivity gains. * **Medium-term (3-5 years):** Three potential paths emerge based on AI demand and bottleneck severity: 1. **"Optimistic Path":** High demand, few bottlenecks. Rapid productivity gains but risk of major job displacement and social conflict without redistribution. 2. **"Moderate Path" (most likely):** High demand but significant, surmountable bottlenecks. Leads to moderate productivity gains, financial market volatility (K-shaped returns), and sectoral job losses. 3. **"Pessimistic Path":** Low demand or severe bottlenecks. Minimal productivity and growth impact, triggering financial market corrections but allowing a smoother societal transition with less labor disruption. * **Long-term:** AI holds potential for a major productivity revolution and prosperity. The conclusion stresses that no path is smooth. Technologically "optimistic" outcomes could be socially detrimental, while "pessimistic" technological diffusion might be more socially stable. Policymakers must monitor developments and prepare balanced responses to manage economic, financial, and social sustainability.

marsbit1m ago

Analyzing the Impact of AI on Economic Growth and Productivity

marsbit1m ago

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War The article argues that the contemporary geopolitical and economic rivalry between the US and China represents a "New Cold War," but one fundamentally fought through technology and financial markets, not physical barriers or conventional trade. Historically, US dominance was secured through financial systems. The Soviet Union, reliant on the rigid "Transferable Ruble," was ultimately undermined by its dependency on the US dollar for oil trade. Later, Japan's semiconductor challenge was countered not just by tariffs (e.g., Plaza Accord, 301 investigations) but by binding it to US Treasury bonds. China presents a more complex, "embedded" challenger. While it holds vast dollar reserves and US debt like Japan, its industrial base is stronger and more diversified than the Soviet Union's. Surviving the initial 2018 trade war phase, the conflict has evolved into a "tech-financial war." The core battlefield is now the stock market. US tech stocks (AI, semiconductors) are treated as sovereign assets, buoyed by bipartisan national will. China is pushing to strengthen its own financial markets to convert industrial strength into financial power and fund its tech ambitions. Companies like ChangXin (semiconductors), Moonshot AI, and DJI compete not just for market share but as financial proxies for their respective systems. The new paradigm is moving from globally efficient monopolies (Apple, Google) towards companies that achieve monopolistic profits within their respective geopolitical spheres. This competition over "pricing power" and financial valuation in segmented markets defines the current era, making the stock market the primary arena for this tech-centric struggle.

marsbit11m ago

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War

marsbit11m ago

RWA Weekly: Ten European Financial Institutions Establish Tokenized Asset Cooperative; Ondo Launches New Execution Network Ondo Network

RWA Weekly: European Banks Form Tokenized Asset Cooperative; Ondo Launches New Execution Network Ondo Network Covering July 24-31, 2026, the RWA sector saw a steady on-chain total value locked (TVL) of $36.8 billion, with holder count hitting a record high. However, stablecoin transfer volumes fell sharply (~30%), indicating low on-chain settlement demand. Key regulatory moves include South Korea advancing stablecoin legislation and a push to scrap crypto taxes, Kenya lowering capital requirements for stablecoin issuers, and Zimbabwe approving seven projects for its crypto sandbox. In project developments, BIS-led Project Agorá successfully tested cross-border payments with tokenized funds across six currencies. Ten major European financial institutions formed the RL1 blockchain cooperative to build tokenized asset infrastructure. Other notable updates: Aviva launched a tokenized dollar liquidity fund on XRPL, POSCO International tokenized commercial invoices on Injective, and a Brazilian farmer used tokenized cattle as collateral for a loan. Additional progress includes BNY Mellon migrating its core transfer agent operations to blockchain, Securitize gaining SEC investment advisor registration, and Tether’s compliant stablecoin USA₮ launching on Celo. Ondo Finance introduced Ondo Network, a new execution layer focused on speed and privacy, moving away from its initial chain plans. An analysis highlights that despite the growing scale of on-chain RWAs (~$32B), approximately 90% remain underutilized in DeFi, pointing to a critical challenge in unlocking liquidity and fostering real-world application beyond mere issuance.

marsbit11m ago

RWA Weekly: Ten European Financial Institutions Establish Tokenized Asset Cooperative; Ondo Launches New Execution Network Ondo Network

marsbit11m ago

South Korean Stock Market Sees Sharp Rebound After Forceful De-leveraging, SK Hynix Rises 30%

On July 31, South Korean stocks staged a historic rebound. The benchmark KOSPI index surged 18.27%, with chipmaker SK Hynix hitting a 30% gain limit. This followed a brutal, near-40% decline in the KOSPI over the previous month, driven largely by a deleveraging spiral involving leveraged ETFs. Analysts attributed the sharp sell-off to structural liquidity issues rather than deteriorating corporate fundamentals. The rally was triggered by a confluence of positive catalysts. Firstly, strong earnings from U.S. cloud giants Microsoft and Amazon alleviated fears of an "AI bubble burst," boosting global tech sentiment. Secondly, SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won made a rare personal purchase of SK Hynix shares, seen as a strong vote of confidence. Thirdly, the South Korean government announced a 20 trillion won ($139 billion) AI investment fund. In response to the market turmoil, South Korean regulators are tightening controls on leveraged ETFs, admitting oversight shortcomings. Measures include raising minimum cash保证金 requirements for散户 investors and suspending new product launches. While the rebound signals eased liquidity pressure, analysts note deep structural issues remain. The market's future stability is seen as dependent on global tech capital expenditure trends and memory chip price cycles, with some viewing the surge as a technical correction rather than a definitive trend reversal.

marsbit32m ago

South Korean Stock Market Sees Sharp Rebound After Forceful De-leveraging, SK Hynix Rises 30%

marsbit32m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片