Thanks Farida and Mila for this excellent post. As you highlight, for me the main issue here is what problem does this even solve? It reeks of Machiavellian intent from a few people / organisations who stand to make fortunes off a system we do not need. I also really worry for those peoples who will never have access to digital monies or accounts...
I have a close friend who's a criminologist; he's been deeply researching the 'Ndrangheta for over 15 years. I always get a real thrill from our conversations.
Anyway, he has this rule he constantly repeats: when there's no clear, obvious, and understandable motive — that's a red flag. It means that in the background, the motives are 100 % (actually, make it 200 %) criminal in nature. That's how it's always been throughout human history.
And that's exactly what's happening with the digital euro: the stated motive is so blurred to the point where it's barely even a shadow of a real motive… and that really makes you think.
Exactly, what problem is this really solving? Too often, big moves like this benefit a few at the expense of everyone else. Access for those left behind is a real concern. Mila dug deep to capture the true sentiment across Europe, and our hope with this piece is to spark wider public debate before irreversible steps are taken so the system works for everyone, not just a few stakeholders.
The Digital Euro isn’t a design problem, it’s a coordination problem.
Europe is trying to upgrade its monetary layer faster than its institutions can adapt. That’s where nonlinearity shows up: small mis-tunings → outsized systemic effects.
You don’t get innovation when a system outruns its governance, you get turbulence.
Once everyone can instantly move their money into a digital euro during a panic, you've built the infrastructure for the fastest bank run in human history. Great post!
And in a game this big, panic is always artificial..no matter how convincingly they stage it. The ones creating the panic aren't the people who truly understand politics or economics, but those who are deeply immersed in show business.
Somewhere across the ocean in Washington, there's a guy who's been in the entertainment industry since 1987 (back when Mike Tyson's first big fights were happening), and this guy personally runs the markets and orchestrates the panics in manual mode. He's got plenty of cards up his sleeve (as he likes to say) to take full advantage of any situation that arises. Of course, he's not the only one, but he's an absolute master of the craft, extra class..
Sociologists call it a “blitz trust forecast”: there is simply no public trust in the digital euro across the EU, and in some countries 20–40% of people haven’t even heard of the initiative. The prognosis? Obviously, this is a straight path to profitable instability.
Exactly, that’s the core risk. Confidence drives financial systems. Ignore it, and even small shocks can cascade into full-blown instability. That’s why transparency, clear rules, and safeguards are non-negotiable before rolling out something as critical as the Digital Euro.
What comes through here is how easy it is for policy to drift into technical certainty while overlooking how fragile confidence becomes once a financial system starts absorbing real world pressure. It also raises the wider point about accountability, which tends to trail behind urgency in ways that leave ordinary people carrying the consequences. Your call for slower, more transparent testing feels proportionate to the scale of what is being proposed.
If you had to prioritise one safeguard above all others before any rollout began, which would you place at the top of the list and why?
There’s a 100% foolproof safeguard that would guarantee protection, but it’s never used. It’s as old as the world itself: personal accountability.
If it were publicly declared that the decision-makers behind the digital euro (those who vote for it and sign the documents) would bear personal liability, and that in the event of negative consequences, Europol and Interpol would issue arrest warrants on charges like large-scale financial fraud, with decades in prison and full asset confiscation, the decisions would look completely different. And the digital euro would never, ever be rolled out across the EU )
Exactly Melanie, that’s the heart of it. Models and technical design can only go so far; real-world confidence and behavior are what make or break a system. Accountability often lags, and ordinary people bear the cost when things go wrong.
If I had to choose one safeguard above all, it would be extended, transparent pilots with independent oversight. Before any full rollout, we need to see how the system behaves under real conditions, with clear metrics for stability, privacy, and access and the ability to pause, adjust, or exit if problems arise. Needless to say, every system needs a confirmed exit strategy before it’s deployed at scale.
In the European financial backrooms, they even ran the numbers (a rough, cynical estimate) on exactly how many people the digital euro would actually benefit ;) Around 10,000. Regular folks (ordinary citizens, office workers, teachers, blue-collar workers) aren’t on that list at all )))
Power must be monetized – that’s the prevailing belief among those who’ve finally clawed their way to it. They couldn’t care less about approval ratings or public support (just look at Macron’s, Merz’s, or Starmer’s numbers). As long as they hold power, they’ll keep squeezing every last drop out of it.
A couple of centuries ago there were still real checks: duels, the guillotine. Now responsibility is “collective,” which in practice means no one is truly accountable at all.
And that’s how we live in this quiet, noiseless world )
Exactly. Lack of clarity or mixed messages only erodes confidence, which is the foundation of any financial system. Ambiguity fuels fear, and fear spreads faster than policy, especially when people feel the system could fail them without recourse.
Thanks Farida and Mila for this excellent post. As you highlight, for me the main issue here is what problem does this even solve? It reeks of Machiavellian intent from a few people / organisations who stand to make fortunes off a system we do not need. I also really worry for those peoples who will never have access to digital monies or accounts...
I have a close friend who's a criminologist; he's been deeply researching the 'Ndrangheta for over 15 years. I always get a real thrill from our conversations.
Anyway, he has this rule he constantly repeats: when there's no clear, obvious, and understandable motive — that's a red flag. It means that in the background, the motives are 100 % (actually, make it 200 %) criminal in nature. That's how it's always been throughout human history.
And that's exactly what's happening with the digital euro: the stated motive is so blurred to the point where it's barely even a shadow of a real motive… and that really makes you think.
Exactly, what problem is this really solving? Too often, big moves like this benefit a few at the expense of everyone else. Access for those left behind is a real concern. Mila dug deep to capture the true sentiment across Europe, and our hope with this piece is to spark wider public debate before irreversible steps are taken so the system works for everyone, not just a few stakeholders.
The Digital Euro isn’t a design problem, it’s a coordination problem.
Europe is trying to upgrade its monetary layer faster than its institutions can adapt. That’s where nonlinearity shows up: small mis-tunings → outsized systemic effects.
You don’t get innovation when a system outruns its governance, you get turbulence.
💯
Once everyone can instantly move their money into a digital euro during a panic, you've built the infrastructure for the fastest bank run in human history. Great post!
You couldn't have said it better, dear Laura :)
And in a game this big, panic is always artificial..no matter how convincingly they stage it. The ones creating the panic aren't the people who truly understand politics or economics, but those who are deeply immersed in show business.
Somewhere across the ocean in Washington, there's a guy who's been in the entertainment industry since 1987 (back when Mike Tyson's first big fights were happening), and this guy personally runs the markets and orchestrates the panics in manual mode. He's got plenty of cards up his sleeve (as he likes to say) to take full advantage of any situation that arises. Of course, he's not the only one, but he's an absolute master of the craft, extra class..
Thank you, Laura. Mila and I did our best to approach the topic with complete objectivity. There are lessons here we can’t afford to ignore or deny.
Stability always breaks first when confidence gets ignored.
John, you're 100% right!!
Sociologists call it a “blitz trust forecast”: there is simply no public trust in the digital euro across the EU, and in some countries 20–40% of people haven’t even heard of the initiative. The prognosis? Obviously, this is a straight path to profitable instability.
Exactly, that’s the core risk. Confidence drives financial systems. Ignore it, and even small shocks can cascade into full-blown instability. That’s why transparency, clear rules, and safeguards are non-negotiable before rolling out something as critical as the Digital Euro.
What comes through here is how easy it is for policy to drift into technical certainty while overlooking how fragile confidence becomes once a financial system starts absorbing real world pressure. It also raises the wider point about accountability, which tends to trail behind urgency in ways that leave ordinary people carrying the consequences. Your call for slower, more transparent testing feels proportionate to the scale of what is being proposed.
If you had to prioritise one safeguard above all others before any rollout began, which would you place at the top of the list and why?
Great question, Melanie!
There’s a 100% foolproof safeguard that would guarantee protection, but it’s never used. It’s as old as the world itself: personal accountability.
If it were publicly declared that the decision-makers behind the digital euro (those who vote for it and sign the documents) would bear personal liability, and that in the event of negative consequences, Europol and Interpol would issue arrest warrants on charges like large-scale financial fraud, with decades in prison and full asset confiscation, the decisions would look completely different. And the digital euro would never, ever be rolled out across the EU )
Exactly Melanie, that’s the heart of it. Models and technical design can only go so far; real-world confidence and behavior are what make or break a system. Accountability often lags, and ordinary people bear the cost when things go wrong.
If I had to choose one safeguard above all, it would be extended, transparent pilots with independent oversight. Before any full rollout, we need to see how the system behaves under real conditions, with clear metrics for stability, privacy, and access and the ability to pause, adjust, or exit if problems arise. Needless to say, every system needs a confirmed exit strategy before it’s deployed at scale.
The problem is those few people who make decisions that affect millions of people are hardly well-intentioned.
Yep ))
In the European financial backrooms, they even ran the numbers (a rough, cynical estimate) on exactly how many people the digital euro would actually benefit ;) Around 10,000. Regular folks (ordinary citizens, office workers, teachers, blue-collar workers) aren’t on that list at all )))
That's a terrible estimate. It's inhuman. What's the point of making changes if people are going to be affected negatively?
Power must be monetized – that’s the prevailing belief among those who’ve finally clawed their way to it. They couldn’t care less about approval ratings or public support (just look at Macron’s, Merz’s, or Starmer’s numbers). As long as they hold power, they’ll keep squeezing every last drop out of it.
A couple of centuries ago there were still real checks: duels, the guillotine. Now responsibility is “collective,” which in practice means no one is truly accountable at all.
And that’s how we live in this quiet, noiseless world )
1 Word: POWER
Exactly. Lack of clarity or mixed messages only erodes confidence, which is the foundation of any financial system. Ambiguity fuels fear, and fear spreads faster than policy, especially when people feel the system could fail them without recourse.