Mastercard Says Customers Are Too Comfortable With Today's Money for Adoption of CBDCs: CNBC

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado em 2023-11-16Última atualização em 2023-11-17

Resumo

The payments giant has a CBDC Partner Program that includes participants such as Ripple, Fireblocks and Consensys.

Customers are so comfortable using today's money that there's no justification for central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), Mastercard's lead for blockchain and digital assets for Asia-Pacific has told CNBC.

"The difficult part is adoption," Ashok Venkateshwaran said on the sidelines of the Singapore FinTech festival on Wednesday. "So if you have CBDCs in your wallet, you should have the ability for you to spend it anywhere you want – very similar to cash today."

The payments giant has a CBDC Partner Program that includes participants such as Ripple, Fireblocks and Consensys. The move was designed to encourage conversations among key players in the industry, but was seen as a way for Mastercard (MA) to deepen its involvement with CBDC developments as the number of nations exploring the technology grows. As many as 130 countries, representing 98% of global gross domestic product, are exploring a CBDC, according to the Atlantic Council. In May 2020, only 35 countries were considering one. Still, only 11 countries have so far introduced a digital currency.

Advertisement
Advertisement

For the time being, it's hard to justify the effort, he said. Building the necessary infrastructure "takes a lot of time and effort on a part of the country."

Last week, Mastercard completed Hong Kong's CBDC Pilot focused on demonstrating how CBDCs or tokenized deposits can be used for real-world asset transactions. "The pilot also showcased the potential for seamless funding and settlement in and out of Web3 marketplaces via a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC)."

Edited by Sheldon Reback.



Leituras Relacionadas

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

"Why DeFi Insurance Remains Unpurchased" explores the paradox of decentralized finance insurance. While DeFi insurance promises automatic, unbiased payouts via smart contracts—eliminating traditional insurers' denial practices—it struggles to attract users. The core issue is economic viability. Premiums are prohibitively high relative to the yields from DeFi protocols. For example, insuring a deposit on Aave or Maple Finance can consume most or even all of the annual yield, leaving returns comparable to or worse than traditional savings. Only the safest protocols, like MakerDAO, offer affordable premiums. Furthermore, the DeFi insurance model is structurally fragile. Unlike traditional insurance where risks are uncorrelated, DeFi risks are highly interconnected (e.g., oracle failures, bridge hacks). A single major exploit can simultaneously threaten multiple protocols, potentially bankrupting the entire insurance pool, which holds only millions against billions in total value locked. The governance model also creates a conflict of interest. In platforms like Nexus Mutual, token holders who vote on claims risk their own capital if payouts are approved, incentivizing denials. Consequently, the market is tiny and shrinking. Nexus Mutual dominates with $81.56 million in assets, but the industry lacks the capacity to cover a catastrophic event like the $292M Kelp DAO hack. Other providers have dwindled or shut down. The article concludes that DeFi insurance faces a "tragedy of the commons": its stability requires widespread adoption, but individual users have no incentive to pay for it, as premiums destroy their yields. Current solutions involve preventative measures like bug bounties and seeking external capital from traditional reinsurance, acknowledging that on-chain capital alone is insufficient to cover on-chain risks.

marsbitHá 1h

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片