The Council of Europe participated in EuroDIG 2026 in Brussels, contributing to discussions on digital governance, democracy, trustworthy AI, platform accountability, and the digital public sphere.
The European Dialogue on Internet Governance took place on 26 and 27 May, bringing together governments, businesses, civil society, academia, the technical community, and other stakeholders to exchange views on internet governance.
The Council of Europe participated under its New Democratic Pact for Europe, a year-long consultation focused on democratic backsliding and digital governance. The consultation covers issues including AI, data protection, media and information society, cybercrime, online discrimination and gender-based violence, digitalisation of justice, legal education, internet governance, and youth participation.
At the opening session, Claudia Luciani, Director of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, said democratic safeguards are critical for the integrity and functioning of Europe’s digital public sphere. She highlighted risks linked to disinformation, information bubbles, and foreign interference and manipulation campaigns.
The Council of Europe also co-organised a debate on trustworthy AI in public services, focusing on transparency, accountability, explainability, and crisis-resilient communication when automated decision-making and AI systems are used in public administration.
Another Council of Europe co-organised session addressed platform accountability and the need to strengthen the digital public sphere. Participants discussed how engagement-driven platform design, generative AI, and synthetic media can contribute to disinformation, hate speech, and other harms, and how governance frameworks could empower users as active citizens.
The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice and its HELP programme also organised a session on how the use of AI in justice systems is changing legal professionals’ training needs.
The event was held under the theme ‘European voices for the future of the internet – celebrating 20 years of .eu and the beginning of a new internet governance era’.
Why does it matter?
The Council of Europe’s participation in EuroDIG shows how digital governance is being folded into broader debates on democratic resilience. Its focus on trustworthy AI in public services, platform accountability, synthetic media, online discrimination, and AI in justice systems reflects a broader policy shift: digital governance is increasingly treated as part of Europe’s democracy, human rights, and rule-of-law agenda, rather than solely as a technology issue.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Participants at EuroDIG 2026 debated whether social media age bans are an effective way to protect minors online, with speakers warning that blanket restrictions may oversimplify a far more complex issue involving platform design, digital literacy, privacy, and children’s rights.
The session, titled ‘Youth Online Safety – Are Social Media Age Bans a Solution?’, focused on age verification, platform accountability, recommendation systems, and the broader European regulatory response to online harms affecting children and young people.
Speakers broadly agreed on the objective of improving child safety online, but many questioned whether blanket bans or rigid age restrictions would, in practice, effectively reduce harm.
Diya Aravinthan argued that protecting children online requires approaches that are proportionate, effective, and aligned with how young people actually use digital platforms. She warned that broad social media bans risk pushing children towards workarounds such as VPNs, shared accounts, or alternative services, potentially making online risks harder to monitor rather than reducing them.
Aravinthan also stressed that social media platforms cannot be understood only as sources of harm. She said young people often rely on online spaces for communication, friendships, creativity, civic participation, learning, and access to information.
Referring to Australian research conducted after the country’s under-16 social media restrictions, she said many young people increasingly consume news and current affairs through social media rather than traditional media channels.
Several speakers, therefore, argued that policymakers should focus more on safer platform design and stronger platform accountability rather than treating online safety primarily as an access-control problem.
Aravinthan called for layered protections based on age-appropriate design rather than a binary ‘access or no access’ model. She highlighted stronger privacy defaults, limits on profiling and targeted advertising, and safer platform features for minors as examples of more proportionate safeguards.
She also argued that recommendation systems and algorithmic feeds represent a central challenge because they actively guide minors toward attention-maximising and potentially harmful content.
Lennart Wetzel of Snapchat similarly argued that platforms carry major responsibility for protecting younger users. He said services should invest continuously in safety-by-design features, moderation systems, parental tools, and age-appropriate safeguards. Wetzel also warned that restrictions targeting only selected platforms may simply push young people towards other, potentially less safe or less regulated services.
He cited Australia’s social media restrictions as an example, noting that Snapchat had disabled or locked more than 415,000 accounts in response to the law while also observing migration to alternative services.
The debate also focused heavily on age verification and age assurance technologies.
Several speakers warned that current age-verification systems remain technically imperfect and raise significant privacy, proportionality, and inclusion concerns.
Aravinthan said platforms should not need to know users’ exact identities or precise ages to provide stronger protections for minors. She supported approaches based on data minimisation and privacy-preserving verification.
Wetzel added that even small error rates in age-assurance systems can produce large-scale consequences when applied across millions of users, potentially excluding legitimate users while failing to prevent circumvention.
Carmela Troncoso provided the strongest technical critique of age-verification systems. She argued that making age restrictions difficult to bypass often requires more intrusive forms of surveillance and data collection.
Troncoso warned that some systems rely on biometrics or behavioural analysis, creating additional privacy risks for children and young people. She also said stronger anti-circumvention measures may push minors towards unsafe tools or services that themselves collect and monetise user data.
According to Troncoso, current technologies risk creating substantial privacy and exclusion harms while offering only limited practical effectiveness.
The discussion also explored the wider European regulatory context.
Tognoni said several member states are already advancing national measures on child protection and age restrictions, creating growing pressure for greater European harmonisation.
Speakers repeatedly warned that fragmented national rules could create inconsistent standards across Europe and undermine the coherence of the digital single market.
Wetzel argued that a risk-based European approach under frameworks such as the DSA offers a more sustainable path than isolated national bans.
The session also highlighted concerns that youth voices remain underrepresented in debates surrounding online safety regulation.
Stefanie Quintao of TikTok said many youth-led and child-rights organisations oppose blanket bans and believe they may unintentionally push children into less protected online spaces.
Both Quintao and Aravinthan stressed that young people use digital platforms for far more than entertainment, and that policy discussions often fail to reflect the lived realities of younger users.
Several audience interventions pushed the discussion further towards the broader political economy of social media platforms.
Some participants argued that the core issue lies not primarily in children accessing technology, but in platform business models built around surveillance, engagement maximisation, and algorithmic amplification.
Others stressed that digital literacy, parental support, and education remain essential complements to regulation.
One participant compared online safety to teaching children how to cross a road: legal rules and infrastructure matter, but children also require guidance, gradual learning, and the development of judgement.
The session concluded with broad agreement that protecting minors online requires a multi-layered and rights-based approach rather than a single regulatory instrument.
Participants broadly agreed that age bans alone are unlikely to solve underlying problems linked to harmful platform design, recommendation systems, and digital business models.
The closing synthesis stressed that effective child protection requires balancing privacy, proportionality, platform accountability, harmonised regulation, digital literacy, and meaningful youth participation.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has issued new guidance on Zero Trust Network Access, warning that many deployments still rely on outdated assumptions about trust.
ZTNA is often introduced to modernise access to applications. However, the NCSC said many implementations still treat network location as a primary indicator of trust, meaning new tools can continue to rely on broad, network-based access rather than more granular and context-driven decisions.
The guidance explains how organisations can design and implement ZTNA to better align with zero-trust principles and modern network environments. It sets out the organisational and technical foundations required before deployment, describes key design requirements, and provides a reference architecture for accessing private applications and Software-as-a-Service.
A key focus is identifying common anti-patterns that undermine ZTNA security outcomes. The NCSC said many deployments fail not because of missing technology features, but because legacy trust assumptions are carried forward into new designs.
The guidance is aimed primarily at architects, security practitioners, and technical decision-makers responsible for designing or evolving access architectures. It is intended to support organisations exploring ZTNA as part of a broader zero trust strategy, replacing or reducing reliance on legacy ‘walled garden’ architectures, or reviewing existing deployments.
The NCSC said the guidance does not redefine zero trust, prescribe a single technical solution, or serve as a compliance checklist. Instead, ZTNA should be treated as part of a wider zero trust architecture shaped by an organisation’s users, systems, threats, and operational constraints.
Why does it matter?
The guidance highlights a common problem in cybersecurity modernisation: organisations can adopt new access technologies while still preserving older trust models. Poorly designed ZTNA deployments may leave broad access paths in place, weakening zero-trust goals and limiting resilience. NCSC’s message is that effective access control depends not only on deploying new tools, but on redesigning trust decisions around context, users, systems, risks, and operational needs.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
The Australian Government has issued a policy advisory urging Commonwealth entities to strengthen cybersecurity readiness for the frontier AI era.
Issued under the Protective Security Policy Framework, the advisory warns that frontier AI creates a dual-use challenge because advanced AI models can strengthen cyber defence while also being used by malicious actors to conduct cyber activities faster, cheaper, and at greater scale.
The Department of Home Affairs said frontier AI increases the risks posed by known vulnerabilities, legacy systems, and weak cyber hygiene, creating what it calls a ‘vulnerability storm’ for government entities.
The document says Australian Government entities do not need access to the most advanced frontier AI models to stay protected. Instead, effective readiness depends on applying existing cybersecurity mitigations and practices, including guidance from the Australian Signals Directorate and requirements under the Protective Security Policy Framework.
Commonwealth entities are told to prioritise compliance with the PSPF, Information Security Manual, and Essential Eight, confirm executive accountability for cybersecurity risk management, engage with ASD and Home Affairs guidance, and identify and remediate material gaps that AI-enabled threat actors could exploit.
The advisory also highlights requirements covering internet-facing systems, secure procurement and supply chains, attack surface reduction, patching, legacy technologies, zero-trust principles, gateway security, ASD’s Cyber Security Partnership Program, and the application of the Information Security Manual.
An annex from ASD says frontier AI is collapsing exploit timelines from days to hours and urges organisations to ‘lock down the fundamentals now’. It outlines actions to secure systems, reduce vulnerabilities, replace or isolate legacy IT, prepare for incidents, adopt AI for cyber defence, and modernise systems using secure-by-design and secure-by-default principles.
The advisory is aimed at accountable authorities, chief security officers, chief information security officers, procurement officers, and entity personnel.
Why does it matter?
The advisory frames frontier AI as an accelerant for existing cybersecurity weaknesses rather than a wholly new category of risk. Australia’s message to government entities is that AI-enabled threats make basic cyber hygiene more urgent: patching, reducing attack surfaces, managing legacy systems, securing supply chains, and preparing incident response plans. It also shows how governments are beginning to translate frontier AI risk into operational security requirements for public-sector organisations.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Spain’s Council of Ministers has approved a draft Organic Law aimed at adapting the EU AI Act into the country’s national legal framework.
Digital Transformation and Public Service Minister Óscar López said the draft law will now be sent to the Cortes for parliamentary consideration. The proposal establishes obligations for AI providers and introduces requirements for human oversight of AI systems.
The draft law incorporates the EU AI Act’s risk-based classification framework into Spanish legislation while establishing sanctions, governance structures, and supervisory authorities.
López said the law follows Spain’s approach to AI regulation, including human oversight, algorithmic transparency, protection of minors, and data privacy. López rejected the idea that regulation undermines competitiveness, pointing to Spain’s broader AI strategy and investment initiatives.
The minister said the EU AI Act includes prohibitions covering subliminal techniques, exploitation of vulnerabilities, biometric classification, social scoring, predictive surveillance, emotion recognition, facial scraping, and real-time identification. He added that, following a request from Spain, the EU agreed on 7 May to add prohibitions on AI-generated sexual deepfakes and AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
The draft law designates Spain’s Artificial Intelligence Supervisory Agency, based in A Coruña, as the central authority. Other market surveillance authorities will also have roles, including the Bank of Spain for financial systems, the Spanish Data Protection Agency for data-related matters, and the General Council of the Judiciary for justice-related issues.
The proposal promotes responsible AI use in the state public sector, including stronger requirements for AI models and transparency in public administration, as well as the creation of an AI officer role. The law also sets rules for AI regulatory sandboxes and measures intended to help AI providers comply with the legislation.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The French data protection authority CNIL and South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission have jointly developed a poster to raise awareness of privacy risks linked to generative AI.
The initiative builds on their ongoing cooperation under a memorandum of understanding signed in October 2022 and follows a previous joint poster on children’s and adolescents’ right to self-determination over personal data.
The new poster, titled ‘Generative AI and Privacy’, provides practical guidance on how users can protect their personal data before, during, and after using generative AI services. CNIL said the material is designed to be easy to understand as generative AI becomes more widely used across age groups.
Both authorities said that generative AI offers new opportunities but also poses challenges for personal data protection, particularly for teenagers and young users. The poster is available in Korean, French, and English, and may be translated into other languages upon request from interested data protection authorities.
CNIL and PIPC said they will promote and use the poster through various initiatives, including online and offline distribution to middle and high schools, social networking service posts, and events.
The two authorities also agreed to continue strengthening international cooperation and policy collaboration, especially to protect children’s and adolescents’ personal data as generative AI expands.
Why does it matter?
The initiative shows how data protection authorities are using public-awareness tools to respond to everyday privacy risks created by generative AI. While it is not a regulatory measure, the cooperation between CNIL and PIPC highlights growing attention to youth data protection, AI literacy, and cross-border coordination between privacy regulators.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
New Zealand Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has released the findings of Phase 1 of his inquiry into the December 2025 Manage My Health cyber incident, in which sensitive patient information was accessed, stolen, and offered for sale.
The first phase of the inquiry focused on the causes of the breach and accountability. The Commissioner found that both Manage My Health and Health NZ breached Rule 5 of the Health Information Privacy Code by failing to ensure reasonable security safeguards for patient information.
The breach affected nearly 100,000 people and caused serious anxiety and distress for many of those impacted. Around 91% of affected patients were based in Northland, with the Commissioner noting that many were likely to be Māori.
The investigation found that a single failure did not cause the breach, but it was a combination of security weaknesses. Manage My Health had gaps in technical safeguards, lacked systems to detect large-scale access to information, and raised concerns about the quality of its security design and risk management practices.
Health NZ was criticised for not doing enough to ensure that Northland hospital patients’ information would be kept safe before arranging to share it through the Manage My Health portal. The inquiry found that the project team lacked specialist privacy and security expertise, relied too heavily on information from Manage My Health, used poor-quality internal privacy risk assessments, and operated under a contract that was not fit for purpose.
The Commissioner said he intends to issue compliance notices requiring both organisations to complete the remaining necessary work and to demonstrate that their security controls are effective in preventing similar incidents. He also recommended that the Ministry of Health establish a process for verifying and ensuring that patient portals meet health-sector security standards.
A second phase of the inquiry will examine the broader impacts of the breach, including patient authorisation, information provided to patients, retention and deletion practices, breach communications, notification compliance, and whether the incident had a disproportionate impact on any group, particularly Northland Māori.
Why does it matter?
The findings show how privacy and cybersecurity failures in health portals can create large-scale risks when sensitive patient data is shared through third-party systems. The case also raises a wider governance issue for digital health: agencies cannot rely only on vendor assurances when transferring large volumes of health information. Independent security assessment, privacy-by-design, effective contracts, and ongoing monitoring are becoming essential safeguards for digital health infrastructure.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The panel will provide impartial, evidence-based advice to support government policy development on children’s online well-being. Its remit includes digital technology, social media, gaming, AI chatbots, and proposals under the Growing up in the online world consultation.
DSIT said the panel will help identify evidence gaps and priority research needs for 2026 to 2027 and beyond. It is also intended to provide independent assurance that policy options are considered in the context of the evolving evidence base.
The panel’s responsibilities include reviewing emerging data on children’s online experiences, online safety, and design interventions. It will also scrutinise DSIT’s presentation of consultation evidence, identify risks and dependencies, and provide recommendations to inform advice to ministers.
Members will serve in a personal capacity and must declare conflicts of interest. DSIT said it will publish the panel’s membership once it has been agreed, along with declarations of conflicts of interest.
The panel will bring together expertise in child development, psychology, education, digital harms, online safety, behavioural science, platform design, data infrastructure, algorithmic systems, ethics, safeguarding, equality, human rights, and lived experience.
DSIT expects the panel to meet monthly via Microsoft Teams for the initial 4-month period, with additional meetings around key milestones. The panel will not set government policy, publish independent reports, represent employers or sectors, or engage with media on behalf of DSIT.
Why does it matter?
The panel shows how the UK is trying to ground children’s online safety and well-being policy in a broader evidence base covering platform design, AI chatbots, gaming, behavioural science, safeguarding, and lived experience. Its creation also points to a more formal advisory process around future policy choices, even though the panel itself will not set policy.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Youth participants at EuroDIG 2026 called for stronger protections around AI, surveillance, children’s rights, accessibility, labour conditions, and digital inclusion, while urging policymakers to involve young people more directly in shaping internet governance and digital policy.
The session focused on presenting the outcomes of YouthDig 2025, EuroDIG’s youth dialogue on internet governance, which brings together young participants from across Europe and neighbouring regions to discuss digital policy issues and draft collective policy messages.
Florence Ranson opened the session by explaining that the discussion aimed to provide a more detailed presentation of the youth messages developed during the YouthDig programme. Frances Douglas-Thompson, member of the EuroDIG Programme Committee, described YouthDig as a preparatory process that combines policy discussions, capacity-building activities, and long-term community-building among young people interested in internet governance.
Organisers said YouthDig 2025 received around 400 applications and brought together 30 participants onsite in Brussels from diverse academic, professional, and geographic backgrounds. Participants included students, academics, civil servants, local politicians, and representatives from public institutions.
The programme included preparatory webinars and in-person discussions focused on AI, online child safety, AI in public services, healthcare, environmental impacts of digital technologies, disinformation, state surveillance, internet shutdowns, and democratic resilience.
Somaya Louhmadi, YouthDIG organiser/presenter, explained that one part of the programme involved crisis simulations addressing deepfakes and AI-driven election manipulation scenarios, while other sessions focused on privacy, cookies, and digital rights from a human rights perspective.
YouthDIG representatives Cecile Vicquery and Liana Vasil then presented the collective policy messages drafted during the event. Participants highlighted concerns surrounding data ownership, profiling, surveillance, algorithmic bias, workplace protections, and AI’s impact on vulnerable groups.
The youth messages also called for stronger digital literacy, protections for children’s data, mental health support related to social media use, accessibility for persons with disabilities and older users, improved rural connectivity, and greater transparency around AI-generated content.
Participants further raised concerns about the environmental and labour impacts associated with digital infrastructure and AI supply chains, including the working conditions of content moderators and resource extraction workers.
On disinformation and AI-generated content, the youth group proposed stronger media literacy initiatives, clearer labelling of AI-generated images and videos, and safeguards against harmful uses of AI systems.
Responding to the youth presentations, Fabrizia Benini of the European Commission said young people’s perspectives should play a more direct role in policymaking and linked the discussion to broader EU youth dialogue initiatives and debates on human-centric digital transformation.
Sophie Kwasny of the Council of Europe highlighted the participants’ focus on power structures, vulnerability, surveillance, and social consequences of digital governance. She also encouraged young people to make use of existing legal and institutional frameworks related to privacy, data protection, and human rights.
Both speakers stressed that youth participation should go beyond symbolic representation and involve meaningful co-design of digital policy processes.
The discussion also reflected on the challenges of reaching consensus within multistakeholder discussions. Participants explained that differences in educational, cultural, and stakeholder backgrounds sometimes made agreement on specific policy solutions difficult, particularly around normative questions linked to regulation and digital rights.
The session concluded with calls for young people to remain active in digital policy debates, build stronger networks, and continue engaging with existing institutional and governance processes.
EuroDIG 2026 takes place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory is following EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have rapidly become one of the most debated topics in global finance. The growing adoption of cryptocurrency, the expansion of stablecoins, and the broader digitalisation of payment systems have prompted governments and central banks to reconsider how state-issued money should function in the digital era. Supporters present CBDCs as a modern financial innovation while critics argue that they could increase state control over financial activity.
Unlike traditional debates surrounding cryptocurrencies, discussions about CBDCs extend beyond the technology alone. Questions surrounding privacy, financial sovereignty, surveillance, monetary policy, and the future role of governments in digital finance now sit at the centre of the global CBDC debate. As more jurisdictions move from research to pilot programmes and implementation, CBDCs are increasingly viewed as a response to the rise of crypto assets and a broader transformation of modern financial infrastructure.
image via Magnific
What are CBDCs?
A central bank digital currency is a digital form of fiat currency issued and controlled by a central bank. Unlike decentralised cryptocurrencies, CBDCs remain fully tied to state monetary systems and national currencies. Their value is supported by governments in much the same way as traditional currency.
Anti-crypto by design, CBDCs differ significantly from cryptocurrencies despite often using similar technological concepts. Decentralised digital assets such as Bitcoin operate without a central authority and rely on distributed blockchain networks, whereas CBDCs are centrally managed and regulated. In practice, CBDCs represent a digital state currency, not an alternative financial system.
Most CBDC models fall into two categories: retail CBDCs and wholesale CBDCs. Retail CBDCs are designed for public use in everyday transactions, while wholesale CBDCs focus on interbank settlements and institutional payments.
Central banks have accelerated CBDC research partly because digital payments increasingly dominate global commerce. The rapid growth of crypto markets and private stablecoins has also intensified discussions about whether states risk losing influence over monetary systems if digital finance evolves outside government control.
image via Magnific
Why governments support CBDCs
Governments and central banks generally present CBDCs as a financial modernisation tool. One of the most frequently cited advantages involves payment efficiency. CBDCs could potentially enable faster domestic transactions, reduce settlement delays, and lower the cost of cross-border payments. In economies where digital payments already dominate consumer behaviour, central banks increasingly argue that public money must evolve alongside technological change.
Another major factor behind CBDC development is monetary sovereignty. The rise of cryptocurrencies and privately issued stablecoins has raised concerns among policymakers that private digital assets could weaken the state’s influence over financial systems. From this perspective, CBDCs are viewed as a way to maintain central bank authority in an increasingly digital economy.
Supporters also argue that CBDCs could improve financial inclusion. In regions where large parts of the population remain outside of traditional banking systems, digital state-backed wallets could provide broader access to financial services without requiring conventional bank accounts.
Some policymakers also view CBDCs as a strategic response to growing geopolitical competition in financial technology. Digital currencies could eventually reshape international payment networks and reduce dependence on existing cross-border settlement systems. As a result, CBDCs are increasingly becoming part of broader discussions surrounding economic competitiveness and technological sovereignty.
image via Magnific
Why the crypto community opposes CBDCs
Opposition to CBDCs within the cryptocurrency community largely centres on concerns surrounding centralisation and state control. Many crypto advocates argue that CBDCs contradict the original philosophy behind decentralised cryptocurrencies, which were designed to operate independently of governments and central financial institutions. Moreover, CBDCs are seen as an attempt to imitate cryptocurrencies.
Privacy concerns remain one of the most significant criticisms. Critics fear that CBDCs could expand government visibility into personal financial activity, particularly if digital payment systems become directly connected to state-controlled infrastructure. Unlike cash transactions, which provide a degree of anonymity, CBDC transactions could potentially allow authorities to monitor spending patterns in real time.
Concerns about programmable money have also intensified debate. Some critics argue that CBDCs could theoretically enable restrictions on how, where, or when money is spent. Although many governments insist that such scenarios are speculative, the possibility of programmable financial controls has become a major talking point in the crypto industry.
Another argument frequently raised by crypto supporters involves financial autonomy. Decentralised cryptocurrencies allow users to self-custody assets without relying on banks or governments. CBDCs, by contrast, remain fully integrated into state-controlled financial systems. For many in the crypto sector, this distinction represents a fundamental ideological divide rather than merely a technological difference.
Critics also argue that CBDCs could increase pressure on decentralised cryptocurrencies through stricter regulatory frameworks. Some fear that governments could eventually favour state-backed digital currencies while imposing stricter compliance requirements on private crypto platforms and decentralised finance ecosystems.
image via Magnific
Global CBDC projects and implementation challenges
Several jurisdictions have already launched or tested CBDC initiatives, producing mixed results across different economic and political environments.
China remains one of the most advanced examples through its digital yuan project, also known as e-CNY. Chinese authorities have promoted CBDC for years as part of a broader effort to modernise payments and strengthen the country’s digital financial infrastructure. However, public adoption has reportedly remained relatively weak despite extensive state support and pilot programmes in major cities. Surveys have indicated that a large majority of respondents neither encountered nor used the digital currency, highlighting ongoing scepticism among consumers.
India has adopted a noticeably more cautious approach towards CBDC implementation through its e-rupee project. Since its launch in late 2022, adoption has remained limited despite various incentives designed to encourage usage. Indian authorities have repeatedly stressed that while CBDCs could improve trade settlements, remittances, and cross-border transactions, the long-term consequences for the banking system remain uncertain. Officials from the Reserve Bank of India have warned that CBDCs could potentially destabilise traditional financial institutions during periods of economic stress.
Russia has also accelerated the development of the digital rouble as part of its broader financial modernisation strategy. The digital rouble is expected to enter a phased public rollout in 2026, with pilot programmes already including government transfers, commercial payments, transport services, and real estate transactions. Russian authorities have recently announced the country’s first digital ruble salary payment, marking an important symbolic milestone for the project. Authorities have stated that future CBDC salary payments would remain optional for recipients. The Bank of Russia has described the project as one of the world’s most advanced CBDC initiatives and has highlighted smart contracts, budgetary payments, and cross-border settlements as key areas for future application.
In contrast, the United States has become one of the most politically divided jurisdictions regarding CBDCs. Debate surrounding a potential digital dollar has increasingly focused on privacy, civil liberties, and financial surveillance concerns. Several Republican lawmakers have pushed for permanent restrictions that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing or even testing a US CBDC. Compared to jurisdictions actively implementing CBDCs, the United States appears to be increasingly focused on limiting government involvement in digital currency systems rather than expanding it.
Meanwhile, the European Central Bank continues to develop the digital euro project. European policymakers have framed the project as part of a broader effort to preserve monetary sovereignty and reduce dependence on non-European payment providers in an increasingly digital economy. According to the ECB, the system is intended to combine the convenience of digital payments with certain characteristics traditionally associated with cash. However, privacy has become one of the most sensitive aspects of the European debate.
Collectively, these international examples demonstrate that CBDC implementation is not solely a technological challenge. Public trust, political culture, regulatory design, and perceptions of privacy and state control may ultimately prove to be as important as the underlying digital infrastructure itself.
image via Magnific
CBDCs and cryptocurrencies: competition or coexistence?
Despite the growing tension between the two models, CBDCs and cryptocurrencies may not necessarily become direct replacements for one another. Analysts argue that the two systems could coexist while serving different purposes within the broader digital economy.
CBDCs are primarily designed to preserve and modernise existing monetary systems, whereas cryptocurrencies often aim to provide alternatives outside of traditional financial structures. From that perspective, CBDCs may function as a regulated digital payment infrastructure while decentralised cryptocurrencies continue to attract users seeking autonomy, borderless transactions, or alternative stores of value.
Some observers also believe that CBDC development could indirectly accelerate digital asset adoption by familiarising the public with blockchain-related technologies, tokenised payments, and digital wallets. Greater public exposure to digital currencies may ultimately increase broader participation in digital finance in general.
At the same time, tensions between the two ecosystems are unlikely to disappear entirely. The debate over CBDCs increasingly reflects a broader conflict between institutional control and decentralised financial models. Questions surrounding privacy, regulation, and ownership of financial data are likely to remain central as digital currency systems continue to evolve.
image via Magnific
Rethinking money, trust, and sovereignty
Ultimately, the debate over CBDCs is not merely about payments or financial technology, but about the future relationship between citizens, money, and the state itself. Throughout modern history, money has represented more than just economic value alone- it has reflected trust, sovereignty, political power, and social stability. As finance becomes increasingly digital, governments and societies are now forced to reconsider the role that public money should play in an environment shaped by decentralised technologies, borderless transactions, and rapidly evolving digital economies.
CBDCs may therefore emerge as one of the defining financial experiments of the twenty-first century. Their long-term significance will likely depend not only on technological efficiency but also on whether central banks can preserve public confidence while adapting to a digital era that increasingly values autonomy, privacy, and financial flexibility. Excessive state control could intensify public resistance, while insufficient innovation may risk weakening the relevance of sovereign currencies in a global financial system increasingly influenced by private digital assets and decentralised networks.
Rather than representing a simple conflict between governments and cryptocurrency communities, the rise of CBDCs may ultimately signal the beginning of a broader transformation in how value, trust, and economic participation are understood in the digital age. The countries that succeed may not necessarily be those with the most advanced technology, but those capable of balancing innovation with civil liberties, monetary stability with openness, and financial modernisation with public trust.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
