← Back to reports

From Money as Property to Money as Infrastructure

Whoever owns the rails owns the currency

In small, almost imperceptible steps, the infrastructure required for the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is being built. Each step, taken in isolation, appears technical. Each justification seems reasonable. Viewed together, however, these measures describe a major structural shift: the movement of financial activity from a plural, partially anonymous space into a fully intermediated, monitorable, and programmable one.

This transition does not begin with CBDC.
It begins with standardization, centralization, and the gradual reduction of alternatives.

This text does not argue that CBDCs automatically produce tyranny. It argues that they transform the cost structure of coercion.

1. The infrastructural stage: preparing the ground

In recent years, several consistent trends can be observed:

None of these measures explicitly mentions CBDC.
Yet all of them create the essential condition: the overwhelming majority of financial flows pass through intermediated systems.

Once this threshold is reached, the introduction of CBDC becomes a backend change rather than a visible rupture.

2. What CBDC changes

Today’s digital money is electronic but passive.
CBDC introduces the concept of programmable money.

This means the technical ability to:

Technically, this is achieved through rule layers attached to balances and transactions, not through the token itself. Control resides in policy engines, not in “the coin.”

CBDC is neither inherently good nor bad.
It is a tool.

The difference is that this tool transforms money from a possessed asset into conditional access.

3. Precedents: when financial infrastructure became a political instrument

Cyprus (2013)

During the banking crisis, large deposits were subjected to bail-in. A portion of account balances was forcibly converted into bank equity.

Structural message: a bank deposit is a revocable claim, not sovereign property.

*Note: this was not a case of political suppression, but of crisis management — which makes it, in some ways, a more instructive precedent. The mechanism was activated not by authoritarian intent, but by ordinary institutional necessity.

Canada (2022)

During protests, authorities temporarily froze accounts associated with certain participants and supporters under emergency legislation. The measure was time-limited and heavily contested.

Its significance is not its severity, but the operational precedent: the state’s ability to suspend access to funds without individualized criminal process.

India (2016)

The government abruptly withdrew large banknotes from circulation.

Result: economic disruption, massive queues, severe impact on the informal economy.

Message conveyed: the state can invalidate physical money by political decision.

Sweden

Sweden is among the most cashless societies in the world. High digitalization has not produced visible authoritarian drift.

This shows that financial digitalization does not automatically generate authoritarianism.
It also shows that the risk is not technological, but political and temporal.

Methodological note

The examples above are not presented as evidence of an inevitable trajectory, but as illustrations of capacities that already exist. The fact that a power is used rarely, temporarily, or controversially does not negate its existence.

The purpose of this text is not to claim that states constantly abuse financial infrastructure, but that the current architecture makes such abuse inexpensive to implement.

4. Why cash caps matter

Capping cash is not eliminating cash.
It is the gradual disarming of the alternative.

When cash becomes difficult to use and socially stigmatized, migration to digital becomes standard behavior.

At that point, CBDC encounters little practical resistance.

5. The political dimension

The issue is not who governs today.
The issue is that leaders change, while infrastructure remains.

Systems built under stable democratic conditions can be inherited by far less liberal governments.

CBDC does not create authoritarianism.
But it drastically lowers the technical cost of authoritarianism.

6. The real problem

It is not digital versus cash.
It is not left versus right.
It is not EU versus nation-states.

It is centralized infrastructure versus distributed escape routes.

Freedom does not disappear through a single dramatic law.
It disappears through architecture.

7. Possible advantages and disadvantages for ordinary people

Possible advantages

Possible disadvantages

The impact is likely to be slow and cumulative.

8. Conclusion

Lord Acton wrote:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The central question is not whether CBDC will be abused tomorrow.
The question is whether we want to build an infrastructure that makes such abuse trivial ten or twenty years from now.

Mini-glossary (for non-technical readers)

CBDC – digital currency issued directly by a central bank
AML/KYC – rules requiring customer identification and transaction monitoring
Bail-in – use of depositor funds to recapitalize a failing bank
Backend – internal system infrastructure, invisible to end users