This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound

> This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound

Does this enable completely anonymous payments, or is this another step towards more surveillance?

> anonymous payments

Surveillance most definitely will be a feature. We are talking about the UK government here.

Who do you think the government would contract to provide card services?

I couldn't care less as long as the government is paying for it and it's going to the lowest bidder according to its specifications.

Might be MC, might be a bank, might be a startup backed by investors.

It doesn't really matter at all. But the point is that it doesn't matter if existing card providers like it or not.

And if the government created a network for that, and asked for 0.1% fee instead of 1.5%, 3.0%, people would act as if this was the beginning of Stalinism.

I get the feeling the commenter you responded to would more or less agree. They specifically mentioned zero transaction fees.

zero fees is unrealistic, any such system has costs.

The government generally funds its projects via taxes; zero fees is perfectly realistic.

So, in the end you pay the same, but indirectly. And then this needs to dispute for funding with a bazillion of other government programs in the politically charged environment of budgetary allocations. Wouldn't it be better to have this program directly funded by its users? wouldn't it be more transparent?

Mind you, I am not sure I am right and you're wrong. I am just pointing some concerns I have. And on the other side, your proposal makes sense also in the point that the government always financed the cost of the whole coins and banknotes stuff from the general budget.

But who are we fooling here? The lobbying power from the payments industry is mind-boggling, maybe bigger than the one from the Defense Industry. They would never allow a government payments program that eliminated their role as middleman.

I'm not sure what your objection is; this is a solved problem.

You don't get charged $0.05 per paper bill by the government every time you go to the ATM. Similarly, you don't get charged by the fire department if it puts out a blaze in your home. So:

> Wouldn't it be better to have this program directly funded by its users? wouldn't it be more transparent?

Absolutely not. This goes against the entire ethos of government, which is that we collectively pay taxes, progressively, for the services that benefit society as a whole.

And if supplying and managing cash isn't a core government service, then I don't know what is. Even the most extreme libertarians and anarchists are going to agree on that one.

I do not agree. Making coins of known weight and purity or metals is a role of government. Supplying cash is not. Cash is a poor substitute for money. Cash is no different than monopoly money.