Assuming you read the entire press releases, so the Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan as I previously mentioned [0], and the National Bank of Ukraine' NBU' mentioned in the press release and is part of the pilot program [2] are not central banks?
What does this say here? [0]
The Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan is the central bank of Bhutan...
The National Bank of Ukraine is the central bank of Ukraine...
The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) selected the distributed ledger technology, in particular the private version of the Stellar protocol, to study opportunities of issuing e-hryvnia and to carry out the Pilot Project.
So the claim 'No central bank digital currency is planning to use a blockchain.' is still false. I think there is a strange sense of denial with the commenter who created that unfounded and baseless absolute claim.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Monetary_Authority_of_Bh...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_of_Ukraine
[2] https://bank.gov.ua/admin_uploads/article/Analytical+Report+...
[3] https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2021/mr-21-30.html
I see. So after you realised your absolute claim was refuted, you set out moving the goalposts to create another absolute claim, yet that is still wrong again.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is using a blockchain for their e-Naira CBDC and that has already launched many months ago. [0] So even when you tried moving the goalposts, your claim has still been refuted once again!
> There is no plan to actually use a blockchain for anything beyond speculation, money laundering, criminality, and scams.
So Moneygram is not a reputable organisation using a blockchain? [1] Perhaps Stripe isn't either [2] who's first partner with crypto payouts is Twitter. Maybe that is why they both waited for regulatory clarity before using these technologies?
This is the problem of having very absolutist statements and creating sweeping claims as you have done. It forces you to move the goal posts on your original claims, create fallacies and do whatever to dodge counter questions.
[0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bitt-develops-afric...
[1] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moneygram-launches-...
[2] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto
That is not my point and no one is arguing that the use case for blockchains in CBDCs was 'decentralized' or 'decentralization' in the first place and none of the evidences I've shown ever said that. Why do you think that in my first reply to your false claim on blockchains not being used in CBDCs, one of the sources explicitly says that it was '...Using Private Blockchain' [0]?
My whole point was towards your original false claims such as:
> > No central bank digital currency is planning to use a blockchain.
> > Every reputable organization that rolled out a pilot project did nothing afterwards.
So interestingly you have proved my last point after you yourself realised that your claims were refuted with no counter refutation and zero counter evidence towards my replies or even answering any of my other questions which suggests that you are simply trying to escape and avoid the discussion.
What is the point of screaming unfounded and absolute claims and then having to end up running away or dodging other question(s) after someone refutes them in front of you?
From Wikipedia A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages the currency and monetary policy of a state or formal monetary union, and oversees their commercial banking system. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base.