Andrew Bailey says he’s “not convinced” by a digital pound. But here’s the real question: is he unconvinced by the technology, or just uncomfortable with a future where central banks aren’t the only ones pulling the monetary strings?
Speaking at a conference in Kyiv, the Bank of England Governor voiced doubts over the need for a central bank digital currency (CBDC), while warning, yet again, about the risks of crypto. It was vintage Bailey, cautious, measured, and deeply suspicious of anything that doesn’t come stamped with the crown. But it also sounded increasingly out of touch.
Because like it or not, digital currencies aren’t some fringe experiment anymore. Bitcoin has been adopted by major funds, traded on regulated exchanges, and even packaged into exchange-traded funds (ETFs). It’s no longer just the domain of crypto bros and basement libertarians. It’s becoming infrastructure. And it’s not going away.
The Real Threat: Decentralisation
Bailey’s remarks aren’t really about technology, they’re about control. Cryptocurrencies, by design, exist outside the centralised financial system. That doesn’t make them perfect. Yes, they’re volatile. Yes, some are outright scams. But that doesn’t negate the broader shift happening beneath the surface: people, institutions, and even some governments are beginning to question why monetary power has to remain the exclusive domain of the state.
That’s what makes digital currencies, especially decentralised ones, so uncomfortable for central bankers. A digital pound, carefully managed by the Bank of England, still keeps the power in the same hands. But Bitcoin? Ethereum? Those don’t ask for permission. And they can’t be shut down by committee.
Too Late to Put the Genie Back
Bailey’s scepticism might have sounded reasonable five years ago. But today? It sounds more like denial. Digital assets have evolved. Institutional investors are here. Global adoption is rising. Meanwhile, some governments are embracing blockchain infrastructure even while publicly casting doubt on crypto’s legitimacy. It’s a contradiction that reveals more about political nervousness than financial insight.
Yes, CBDCs could offer improvements in payments, traceability, and fraud prevention. But let’s be honest, they’re also a way for central banks to reassert dominance in a world that’s already starting to route around them. That’s why governments are so eager to explore their own digital currencies while continuing to trash decentralised ones.
Bailey’s remarks offer a glimpse into the mindset of the old financial guard, one that still believes innovation should be tightly controlled, cautiously permitted, and always state-sanctioned. But the world doesn’t work that way anymore.
Digital money isn’t some passing trend, it’s the next phase of evolution in global finance. Whether central bankers are ready or not, the shift is already underway. The real question isn’t whether to adopt digital currencies. It’s whether traditional institutions will adapt, or be left behind.