Chief of the ECB, Christine Lagarde claims that people don't want the coming CBDC to be anonymous. 

'Privacy, not anonymity.'

The double-speak by Lagarde is quite bold.

Wouldn't privacy imply being anonymous?

The banking and finance sector seems to be trending towards 100% digital assets, or receipts of assets. With the rise in speculation of cryptocurrencies, central banks are getting frothy at the mouth.

With the blockchain, these central banks can create their own Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), cut out the middle man (corporate banks), and track, control, and otherwise manipulate the entire global financial system quickly and directly.

Consumers and businesses have always had the option to transact in cash, giving them privacy and more importantly, anonymity.

Why would someone want their transactions to be private and anonymous?

Firstly, people don't like the idea of being tracked and traced by force. It's an uncomfortable thought to have knowing that everything you do is being tracked, and in the long run, people aren't going to do things that make them uncomfortable.

Secondly, there is security concerns with allowing a centralized agency to monitor and control a very large flow of data, creating a large honey pot to attract potential hackers.

In my opinion, the notion of having a centralized currency was flawed in the first place. But, adding in the additional "feature" of it being a centralized digital currency, makes this fiat experiment more dangerous than it has ever been before.

A CBDC would reduce freedoms, and make it easier for governments to track, trace, and tax the world. It's a bit unsettling, but there are ways to opt out.

One of them being, precious metals.

Read the Full Article form U Today here.