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

ccn.comPublicado em 2025-12-25Última atualização em 2025-12-25

Resumo

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
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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Raising Interest Rates Is Not a Tech Killer, EPS Is: A Strategy for Discarding the Weak and Retaining the Strong After the AI Theme's Sharp Decline

**Summary: Rising Interest Rates Are Not the Killer of Tech; EPS Is: The "Keep the Strong, Ditch the Weak" Strategy After the AI Theme Plunge** The author argues that the sharp sell-off in tech and AI-related stocks, triggered by a strong US jobs report that heightened Fed rate hike fears, represents a "pullback to pick up passengers" rather than a "car crash." The true end of a tech bull market is not determined by an extra 25 basis point hike, but by industry overcapacity and the disproval of earnings per share (EPS) expectations. Historical analysis shows that during past rate hike cycles, the Nasdaq-100 often outperformed, provided EPS growth remained strong. The current phase is seen as a shift from a "broad narrative-driven rally" to a "focused verification stage" for AI. The investment strategy should be to "keep the strong, ditch the weak." * **Retain exposure** to high-conviction AI infrastructure leaders with clear order visibility, stable margins, strong cash flow, and upward EPS revisions (e.g., AI servers, advanced packaging, optical modules, key cloud suppliers). * **Reduce exposure** to high-beta, narrative-driven stocks with unclear profit paths (e.g., some quantum computing, space, or speculative chip stocks), especially on rebounds. Valuation concerns should focus on whether earnings can catch up to high multiples, not on high P/E alone. Crowded positioning signals a concentration into quality assets, not necessarily a market top. The upcoming Q2 earnings season will be a key validation point. The core principle is to hold stocks with proven EPS, while using macro events (CPI data, central bank meetings) to manage timing and risk.

marsbitHá 34m

Raising Interest Rates Is Not a Tech Killer, EPS Is: A Strategy for Discarding the Weak and Retaining the Strong After the AI Theme's Sharp Decline

marsbitHá 34m

CLARITY Act Hits New Roadblock As Ethics Agreement Collapses In Senate Talks

The CLARITY Act has encountered a new obstacle as a bipartisan Senate group's agreement on ethics provisions collapsed. Republicans reportedly reversed their position on a key element that would have allowed state attorneys general to sue the Department of Justice for failing to enforce ethics rules related to President Trump. Democrats viewed this as an "about face" from a prior tentative deal. As a counter-proposal, Republicans suggested limiting enforcement authority to the Attorney General and mentioned impeachment as a potential remedy for violations. The impasse leaves the crypto market structure bill's path to a full Senate vote uncertain. Another major hurdle involves law enforcement groups' concerns that the bill could hinder investigations into blockchain-related crimes like money laundering. The White House Crypto Council is scheduled to meet with these groups to address these issues, particularly around the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. Key Democratic senators have stated their support for the CLARITY Act is contingent on adequately addressing both ethics and law enforcement concerns.

bitcoinistHá 1h

CLARITY Act Hits New Roadblock As Ethics Agreement Collapses In Senate Talks

bitcoinistHá 1h

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.

marsbitHá 2h

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

marsbitHá 2h

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.

bitcoinistHá 2h

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

bitcoinistHá 2h

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 NewsHá 2h

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

Foresight NewsHá 2h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow