The policy director of the Encryption Innovation Commission called on the United States to stop its “wait-and-see” attitude towards CBDC

On March 1, Yaya Fanusie, the policy director of the Cryptocurrency Lobbying Organization “Cryptocurrency Innovation Committee (CCI)”, said in an interview that the sanctioned countries are seeking to conduct transactions on financial infrastructure not controlled or seriously affected by the United States in order to transfer funds across the border more freely; If the United States continues to “wait and see” and lags behind in the adoption of CBDC, this may cause “trouble” and lead to unpredictable “geopolitical impact” over time.

Interpretation of this information:

The message highlights the concerns of Yaya Fanusie regarding the impact of the adoption of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and financial sanctions. He suggests that countries facing financial sanctions are looking for alternatives to carry out transactions that are not controlled in any form by the United States. This means that these countries are finding ways to transfer funds across their borders without any interference from the United States.

Fanusie argues that as the United States continues to rely on traditional financial systems, it runs the risk of being left behind. CBDCs are a form of digital currency that is developed and regulated by central banks worldwide. The adoption of CBDCs could provide countries a way to move away from traditional financial systems, which are controlled by the United States. It could also lead to a more seamless and efficient transfer of funds across borders.

The implications of this shift toward CBDCs could have a significant geopolitical impact on the United States over time. Countries that have been hit with financial sanctions will have more control over their financial systems and will no longer be forced to rely on the traditional financial infrastructure controlled by the United States. This could result in more significant economic and political power shifting away from the United States to other countries that adopt CBDCs.

Furthermore, the United States will need to take action soon to avoid falling behind in the adoption of CBDCs. If it fails to do so, this could lead to more indefinable geopolitical consequences in the future.

In conclusion, Fanusie’s cautionary remarks about the adoption of CBDCs and the repercussions of financial sanctions highlight the need for the United States to keep up with emerging technologies and financial systems. The shift towards digital currencies could signify a significant change in the economic and political power dynamics globally. It is essential to pay attention to these emerging trends to avoid any unforeseen consequences.