A congressional hearing on digital currencies rarely makes headlines. Yet, this week’s debate over stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) revealed more than technical disagreements; it exposed deeper anxiety about financial power, privacy, and control in an increasingly digital world.
The conversation unfolded along predictable lines. Those skeptical of CBDCs warned of creeping surveillance and government overreach. Advocates, meanwhile, framed it as a necessity, a matter of American competitiveness in a world where China and Europe are already moving ahead. Yet what emerged, almost inadvertently, was a realization that the supposedly safer alternative, privately issued stablecoins, carries many of the same risks.
While CBDC opponents championed stablecoins as the free-market alternative, testimony from industry leaders revealed that stablecoins — despite their branding as decentralized, private-sector solutions — already carry many of the same risks. The ability to freeze assets, enforce government mandates, and track transactions is a present reality, especially when combined with Know Your Customer (KYC) laws which eradicate privacy.
The core argument against CBDCs is simple: they give the federal government unprecedented control over personal finances. Randall Guynn, Chairman of the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell, issued a stark warning.
