Central bank currencies will reduce use of the dollar
July 7, 2023
Exploring transformation of value in the digital age
By Michael J. Casey, chief content officer
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here.
In last week’s column, I was dismissive of governments’ efforts to have their cake and eat it too as the European Commission released central bank digital currency rules that purported to preserve citizens’ privacy while maintaining a system of monitoring and record-keeping to fight money laundering. This week, I look at CBDCs from a very different perspective: not that of citizens’ daily shopping activity, but of central banks using them at the wholesale level to settle large-scale cross-border transactions among themselves and the profound impact this will have on the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
This week’s podcast showcases the interview that my co-host Sheila Warren and I had with Axios reporter and former CoinDesker Brady Dale about “SBF: How The FTX Bankruptcy Unwound Crypto’s Very Bad Good Guy,” his new book that probes into what drove Sam Bankman-Fried to become what he became. (Note: The June 23 edition of this newsletter erroneously flagged that Brady Dale episode would run that week; my apologies for the error and any confusion it caused.)
CBDCs Will Dethrone the Dollar
(Ryan Quintal/Unsplash, Modified by CoinDesk)
Much like the cruel joke Charles de Gaulle reportedly cracked about Brazil – that it’s “the country of the future and always will be” – predictions of an end to the dollar-based international monetary system seem to belong to a future that will never arrive.
Yet that future is coming, faster than all the prior failed forecasts of the end of dollar hegemony would have you think. In contributing to that shift, Brazil may have the last laugh.
The catalyst can be found in central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), a model for digital fiat money that was, ironically, spurred by governments’ reaction to the 2008 invention of the decidedly anti-fiat Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin fanatics tend to pooh-pooh CBDCs as centralized tools for government manipulation that local populations will recoil from. In dismissing them, they overlook the massive cross-border shifts these new tools will foster at the macro level.
As key export economies such as Brazil embrace CBDC-based direct settlement with their trading partners, it will spur a trend of de-dollarization over the next decade. The ramifications for U.S. capital markets, for the global economy, and for geopolitical power dynamics are profound.
Brazil’s central bank is among more than a hundred experimenting with CBDCs. Others that matter for this discussion include the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Singapore and China, which is streets ahead in rolling out its electronic currency, the e-CNY. China, of course, has made no secret of its desire to reduce its dependency on dollars.
Those five economies account for around 25% of global output, but it’s their outsized roles in world trade – as exporters of oil (UAE’s Abu Dhabi), foodstuffs (Brazil), natural gas (Russia) and consumer goods (China) and as a finance and shipping entrepot (Singapore) – that amplifies the international impact of their respective currency strategies.
Things will get really interesting once such countries’ central banks use digital currencies in direct settlement arrangements with each other rather than going through the dollar, which is currently used as an intermediating currency in 90% of all trade finance. There are signs this is moving forward – from Singapore’s DBS Bank recent move allowing direct payments in e-CNY to multilateral institutions such as the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund encouraging member countries to collaborate on cross-border CBDC design. So, buckle up.
Cross-border CBDCs are what matter, not retail
People tend to view CBDCs through a retail lens, seeing them as new digital payment units that citizens would use in daily purchases. That somewhat overhyped idea has fueled concerns about state surveillance of people’s spending – to such an extent that opposition to CBDCs is now a campaign position of U.S. presidential candidates, including Republican hopeful Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Democrat challenger to President Biden Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I’ve been arguing for some time that protocol-based interoperability for countries to directly exchange digital fiat currencies would have a dramatic impact on the international monetary system.
By cryptographically locking an exchange rate forward-contracts into a decentralized, blockchain-based escrow structure could protect an exporter and an importer from currency volatility over the timeframe of their trade deal without either party having to trust the other, or anyone else, to hold the funds. Voilà, no need for the dollar to sit in the middle.
Under this system, a Brazilian farmer could agree to provide a Chinese hoggery with soymeal feed for its pigs at a real-to-renminbi exchange rate fixed at signing, knowing that a smart contract would automatically deliver those funds upon arrival of the shipment in Shanghai. With the right oracles in place, all this would happen peer-to-peer without either side having to trust the other’s promise to deliver the funds or the goods.
As such, they could eschew the grossly inefficient current system in which a U.S.-regulated correspondent bank typically acts as the trusted third party in the deal, first exchanging the importer’s renminbi into dollars and then converting them into reals for the Brazilian exporter. If such arrangements proliferated, I have argued, it would reduce global trade-related demand for dollars and, by extension, diminish investment in dollar reserve assets such as U.S. government bonds.
Now, after listening to influential economist Zoltan Pozsar on the Odd Lots podcast with Bloomberg’s Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway, I see that it will likely be the collaborating efforts of central banks, rather than direct importer-exporter agreements, that will forge this path toward disintermediated digital settlement.
Pozsar sees CBDC-wielding central banks adopting new roles as clearing agents for their country’s exporting and importing firms and then using CBDCs to settle directly with their foreign counterparts. In this way, they would displace the all-powerful dollar-based correspondent banks of Wall Street, such as J.P. Morgan and Citibank. The upshot is that countries won’t need as many dollars.
Pozsar sees the trend driven by mid-tier trade-heavy economies, those that play an outsize role in the demand and supply of dollars worldwide. Net exporting countries that run trade surpluses will accumulate fewer dollars and so will supply less greenbacks to global foreign exchange markets. And importers that run trade deficits will have less demand for the dollars they previously needed to pay for things.
In support of this week’s column I figured it would be worth spinning up a chart on China’s reserve holdings – which for now can be viewed as a proxy of that country’s U.S. dollar holdings, even though Beijing does not break out the currency makeup of its reserves other than its gold holdings. Here’s a chart of China’s reserves, minus its gold position, over time. I lifted it from the FRED database at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis excludes gold holdings.
The striking thing is how the accumulation model, which essentially ran for 20 years on the back of China’s ever-growing trade surplus with the rest of the world. Its end came when China stopped intervening to weaken the renminbi in support of its exporters and started to focus on building its domestic economy. Perhaps more striking is that even as its economy has slowed in recent years, partly due to the COVID pandemic, China has not actively moved to buy dollars in support of a more competitive renminbi, at least not the scale it used to. That’s why its holdings of foreign reserves have flatlined since then.
As discussed above, if digital currency technology allows it to successfully extract itself from dollar dependence, it will have much less need for the more than $3 trillion it currently holds in reserves. If it moves to sell them, the world economy will be in for a shock.
Crypto Twitter, however, could not resist the irony of juxtaposing this supportive statement against Fink’s derogatory remarks against the largest cryptocurrency six years ago. Here’s an example of the genre:
Relevant Reads: Binance Woes
The fallout from a variety of enforcement actions against Binance continues, intensified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent lawsuit alleging that the exchange behemoth broke several securities laws. This week saw new actions in Australia and the exit of some key officials.
After Bloomberg first reported that Binance Australia’s office was on Tuesday searched by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), Jack Schickler reached a local company official, who said Binance is “cooperating with local authorities and … focused on meeting local regulatory standards.”
On Thursday, Elizabeth Napolitano picked up on a story, first reported by Fortune, that top Binance executives had left the company and that its source said it was because of CEO Changpeng Zhao’s handling of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the company. She noted that one of the departures, former Chief Strategy Officer Patrick Hillmann, tweeted that he was leaving on good terms and that he “continues to respect and support” Zhao.
Later that day, Zhao, better known as CZ, was taking to Twitter to downplay the Fortune report. As Sam Reynolds reported, the Binance CEO called the story “FUD” – a common expression in crypto circles that suggests the conveyer of a message is intending to sow “fear, uncertainty and doubt.” CZ claimed the departures were part of normal “turnover” and “the reasons dreamed up by the ‘news’ are completely wrong.”
Toby Bochan produced a useful explainer piece, including a short profile of CZ, a description of the distinctions between Binance’s global company and its U.S.-owned subsidiary, Binance U.S., and a timeline of events impacting the company since it first launched an initial coin offering in July 2015.
