2024-12-16-国际清算银行-央行数字货币和快速支付系统_竞争对手还是合作伙伴_（英）_35页_716kb

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and Fast Payment Systems (FPS): Rivals or Partners?

Background and Overview

This paper examines the relationship between retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and fast payment systems (FPS), which share similarities such as enabling instant user transactions and supporting financial inclusion. However, key differences exist: CBDCs are direct claims on the central bank, acting as a form of central bank money, while FPS allows transfers of private money (e.g., commercial bank money or electronic money). Central banks in 14 jurisdictions were interviewed, revealing varied perspectives on implementation strategies and risk management. The paper concludes that the choice between issuing a CBDC, deploying an FPS, or both is highly contextual, depending on market features, ecosystem maturity, and policy objectives.

Key Similarities

• Instantaneous and Cost-Effective Transactions: Both CBDCs and FPS facilitate immediate payments with low costs, enhancing payment efficiency.
• Interoperability and Financial Inclusion: They can improve access to financial services for underserved populations, such as through offline capabilities and API integration, promoting inclusion goals.
• Ecosystem Collaboration: Both rely on the central bank's role as overseer or operator, with private payment service providers (PSPs) offering end-user services.

Key Differences

• Nature of Money: CBDCs are liabilities of the central bank, insulating users from bankruptcy risks, while FPS involves private money, subject to institutional safeguards.
• Settlement and Design: CBDCs typically use central bank money for settlement and can support advanced features like programmable payments, whereas FPS often rely on deferred net settlement or real-time gross settlement models.
• Regulatory and Legal Implications: CBDC issuance requires more regulatory modifications, such as legal tender recognition, whereas FPS may align with existing frameworks.

Central Bank Views and Considerations

• Complementarity: About half the interviewees see no conflict between CBDCs and FPS, believing they can serve different objectives (e.g., CBDC for monetary sovereignty, FPS for immediate transactions).
• Rationale for Implementation: Common motivations include increasing financial inclusion, enhancing payment speed, and ensuring safety, with some jurisdictions prioritizing FPS due to its proven track record.
• Timing and Feasibility: Most central banks start with FPS to upgrade existing systems, delaying CBDC exploration, due to resource constraints and the need for further research on risks like disintermediation.

Risks and Challenges

• Financial Stability and Disintermediation: CBDCs could draw funds away from commercial banks, potentially undermining lending capacity and market competition.
• Operational and Cybersecurity Risks: Implementing both systems increases technical complexity, requiring robust frameworks to handle failures and attacks.
• Privacy vs. Compliance: Balancing user privacy with AML/CFT regulations is a top priority, as full anonymity could enable illicit activities.

Preliminary Conclusion

The choice between CBDCs and FPS is context-specific, hinging on factors like market maturity and policy focus. Central banks must weigh design choices, such as pricing and interoperability, and engage stakeholders early to mitigate risks. Both can coexist, but success requires careful governance and adaptation to evolving payment landscapes.