With half the world holding a general election this year, I started thinking about how we form opinions and whether many of us can be persuaded to change our minds. It is hubris to believe that you, and only you, form opinions via thoughtful research and considered analysis, and it is those with whom we disagree that are driven by bias and emotion.
It was an odd feeling last year when I sat at a dinner and witnessed an unhinged rant from someone who, ironically, I agreed with, and thought “please never let me be so closed-minded”.
The man was a well-known cryptocurrency sceptic, sitting at a table of cryptocurrency promoters, and passions erupted to the point at which one guest left the table rather than continue the argument. Again, some of his viewpoints are points I have made in public as well. “Crypto does not solve any real monetary or financial problem”, “technology on its own is not the solution to any problem”, and “the wider crypto culture depends on ‘dumb’ money, sourced from vulnerable sections of society to maintain liquidity”.
However, the others at the table weren’t bitcoin bros, but people who argued there was a time and a place, a context for when the use of blockchain technology, the platform that supports cryptocurrencies, was beneficial. They pointed to various nefarious governments around the world, whose currencies were rendered almost useless where alternative forms of money were providing a lifeline to their citizens. All these points fell on deaf ears connected to a fist, which repeatedly banged on the table.
I looked across and asked “would anything change your mind” from his view that cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies were useless at best and dangerous at worst? He paused for a moment and responded with a definitive “no”.
It is my viewpoint that various forms of cryptocurrencies and other areas of decentralised finance will remain an alternative to the existing, established, centralised global financial system. I’m not in love with bitcoin or stablecoins or other tokenised assets the same way I’m not “in love” with the National Lottery (it’s a tax on the poor). I don’t want to ban it and I understand it isn’t going away.
However, it was the definitive “no” on that early spring evening that shook me out of my complacency. Pre-pandemic, I once came out very anti-QR code. So firm was I in my belief that QR codes for payments or any sort of information was a non-starter I was asked to stop tweeting about it at an event because I was upsetting some of the technology presenters.
However, times change, technology improves, and circumstances alter. An open mind, one not so quick to settle on “no”, to navigate those changes and deal with those whose view of the world might be very different from your own.
This month I’ve written extensively about projects around the world to create central bank digital currencies. Many have derided their development as not needed in our increasingly digitised financial environment. Others view digital fiat money, organised in a centralised and transparent way, as an example of government overreach and a sign of a dystopian future where central banks can decide whether you spend your money on sugary soft drinks or protein smoothies.
Most projects aimed at developing a CBDC are trying to navigate a changing geopolitical world that will have massive impacts on our culture, trade relationships and financial stability. The problem is that no one is sure how that future world will evolve and what shape it will take. We, as well as central banks, can only plan, anticipate and predict what will happen. That work takes minds that are open to the possibility that their views may be wrong.
Liz is deputy editor of The Banker. You can connect with Liz on LinkedIn, or follow her on Bluesky.
Click here to start your free trial on thebanker.com, and sign up to the Digital journeys newsletter, as well as the four other pillar newsletters.
