A coordinated global effort to phase out physical cash is currently underway, driven by governments and financial institutions under the stated objectives of economic modernization, crime prevention, and increased efficiency. While these initiatives are frequently framed as measures to enhance security and foster financial innovation, they raise profound concerns regarding individual financial autonomy, privacy, and economic freedom.  

A particularly concerning development in this transition is the growing push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)—state-controlled digital currencies that grant governments unprecedented oversight and control over financial transactions. Unlike physical cash, which allows for anonymous and unrestricted exchanges, CBDCs enable real-time tracking, restriction, and manipulation of financial activity, effectively transforming financial systems into instruments of surveillance and regulatory enforcement.  

This report critically examines the global shift away from cash, the role of CBDCs in expanding financial surveillance, and the broader implications for economic liberty and individual rights. Additionally, it explores the emergence of decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin as potential alternatives for preserving financial sovereignty. By assessing these developments, both policymakers and individuals can take informed and proactive measures to safeguard financial freedom in an increasingly digitized economy.

II. The War on Cash: A Coordinated Global Effort

For centuries, physical cash has served as one of the last bastions of financial privacy and individual economic autonomy. Unlike digital transactions, cash is untraceable, does not require third-party authorization, and cannot be frozen or restricted by financial institutions or state authorities. However, in recent decades, governments and central banks worldwide have systematically advanced policies aimed at the reduction—and eventual elimination—of cash, citing concerns over money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorism financing. While these justifications may appear reasonable on the surface, the broader implication of a cashless society is the consolidation of financial control within government and banking institutions, ultimately diminishing individuals’ ability to conduct transactions freely and without oversight.

Historical Precedents for Government Financial Control

The inclination of governments to exert control over financial transactions is a recurring theme throughout history. States have consistently sought to centralize economic power by restricting financial autonomy and compelling citizens to participate in government-sanctioned monetary systems. A particularly notable instance of this occurred in the United States in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, mandating that all Americans surrender their gold holdings to the federal government. Presented as a necessary measure for economic recovery during the Great Depression, this policy effectively facilitated the expropriation of private wealth and compelled individuals to operate within a financial system fully controlled by the state.  

Similarly, in 1971, President Richard Nixon formally ended the gold standard, severing the U.S. dollar’s convertibility to gold. This decision granted the Federal Reserve unrestricted monetary authority, enabling the expansion of the money supply without tangible asset backing. The long-term consequences have included persistent inflation, escalating national debt, and the steady enlargement of government influence over economic affairs. These historical precedents underscore a consistent pattern: as governments assert greater control over financial systems, individual economic autonomy diminishes. The contemporary movement toward a cashless society and increasing financial surveillance reflects a continuation of this trajectory.

The Global Effort to Eliminate Cash

Governments worldwide have increasingly implemented policies that restrict cash transactions and accelerate the transition toward digital financial systems, often under the pretext of combating crime, enhancing financial efficiency, and curbing illicit financial activities. While these measures are framed as necessary for economic modernization and security, their broader impact has been the systematic erosion of financial autonomy and increased state oversight of personal transactions.  

India’s 2016 demonetization policy serves as a case study in the unintended consequences of such measures. By abruptly invalidating 86% of the nation’s cash supply, the Indian government aimed to curtail black-market transactions and improve tax compliance. However, the policy disproportionately affected small businesses and informal economies reliant on cash, forcing widespread economic hardship and limiting access to financial services for millions. Rather than achieving its intended goals, demonetization accelerated the population’s dependence on digital banking, granting the state greater visibility and control over financial activities.  

Similarly, Sweden has aggressively pursued a cashless society, with over 90% of transactions now conducted through digital platforms. While this shift has been framed as a technological advancement, it has simultaneously removed citizens’ ability to conduct anonymous transactions and made financial access entirely contingent on digital banking infrastructure. Critics argue that such a system grants both the government and private financial institutions disproportionate power over individuals’ economic freedoms, enabling financial deplatforming and restrictions on transactions deemed politically or socially undesirable.  

Other nations have introduced direct legal restrictions on cash usage. In Australia, legislation criminalizes cash payments exceeding $10,000, effectively mandating the use of digital banking for large transactions under the justification of curbing illicit financial activity. Across Europe, countries such as France, Spain, and Italy have imposed strict limits on cash payments, effectively making large cash transactions illegal. Concurrently, the European Central Bank (ECB) is actively developing a digital euro, which, once implemented, could further restrict physical cash access and create a financial environment where all transactions are subject to state monitoring.  

The global trend toward cashless economies raises critical concerns regarding financial privacy, autonomy, and state overreach. While proponents argue that digital transactions improve efficiency and security, the increasing governmental and institutional control over financial systems introduces significant risks, particularly in terms of financial exclusion, surveillance, and the ability to restrict access to economic resources.

The Connection Between Cash Elimination and Financial Control

The transition toward cashless economies is not merely a modernization of financial systems; it represents a fundamental reallocation of financial power from individuals to governments and banking institutions. The removal of physical currency eliminates the ability to conduct transactions independently, making all financial activity contingent on third-party approval. This shift has several significant implications:

1. Loss of Financial Privacy: The elimination of cash ensures that all transactions become traceable, enabling governments and financial institutions to monitor, record, and analyze financial behavior in real time.
2. Increased Financial Censorship: Without access to cash, governments and banks gain the ability to freeze assets or restrict transactions based on political or ideological considerations, effectively using financial systems as mechanisms of control.
3. Heightened Economic Vulnerability: Individuals become increasingly susceptible to government-imposed economic policies, including negative interest rates, the programmed expiration of digital currency, or restrictions on how and where funds can be spent.

A striking example of financial enforcement occurred during the 2022 Canadian trucker protests when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration invoked emergency powers to freeze the bank accounts of individuals who contributed financially to the protest movement. This incident underscored the extent to which digital financial systems can be leveraged as tools of political coercion.

As governments worldwide continue to advance policies aimed at eliminating cash, the capacity to conduct financial transactions beyond state oversight is rapidly diminishing. This trajectory raises significant concerns about personal financial autonomy, as individuals increasingly find themselves subject to centralized financial control without alternative means of economic participation.

III. Central Bank Digital Currencies: The End of Financial Privacy

Governments across the globe are actively advancing the development and implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), state-controlled digital currencies designed to replace traditional physical cash. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate on independent, distributed networks, CBDCs are fully centralized and subject to direct oversight by national monetary authorities. While proponents frame CBDCs as a means to enhance financial efficiency, security, and accessibility, their broader implications extend far beyond these stated objectives. The introduction of CBDCs grants governments an unprecedented level of control over financial transactions, effectively eliminating financial privacy, constraining economic autonomy, and creating new mechanisms for state intervention in economic activity. Once fully integrated, CBDCs could enable governments to monitor, restrict, or even program financial behavior in ways that were previously unfeasible, raising significant concerns about personal financial sovereignty and state overreach.

What Are CBDCs and How Do They Work?

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are state-issued digital currencies that operate on a government-controlled digital ledger, distinguishing them from traditional bank accounts managed by private financial institutions. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which facilitate peer-to-peer transactions without intermediary oversight, CBDCs are fully centralized and programmable. This structure grants governments direct access to individuals’ financial transactions, enabling real-time tracking, regulation, and the potential imposition of restrictions on how funds are spent.  

The key distinction between CBDCs and existing digital banking systems lies in the degree of control. While digital payments processed through private banks maintain a level of financial independence, CBDCs would remove the intermediary buffer between individuals and the state, granting governments unprecedented authority over financial activity. In practice, this could allow for the restriction of specific transactions, the freezing of accounts, and the enforcement of spending conditions at the discretion of policymakers. As a result, the institutionalization of financial censorship becomes a distinct possibility, raising concerns about personal financial autonomy and the broader implications of state-controlled monetary systems.

How CBDCs Expand Government Control Over Financial Transactions

Governments are promoting Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as a means to modernize financial systems, enhance transaction efficiency, and combat illicit financial activities. However, the implementation of CBDCs would also enable an unprecedented degree of state financial intervention, raising significant concerns regarding privacy, autonomy, and government overreach. Key implications include:

1. Comprehensive Transaction Monitoring – Unlike cash, which facilitates private and anonymous exchanges, CBDCs would ensure that all financial transactions are permanently recorded and fully accessible to government authorities, eliminating financial privacy.
2. Programmable Currency Controls – Governments would have the capacity to impose spending restrictions, set expiration dates on digital currency, and regulate transactions based on individual behavior, policy mandates, or broader economic objectives.
3. Asset Freezing and Financial Sanctions – The ability to instantly restrict or freeze financial assets could be used as a tool for political enforcement, allowing governments to penalize dissidents, protesters, or individuals deemed “non-compliant” with state policies.

While CBDCs are framed as instruments of financial innovation, their broader implications raise critical questions about state control, individual economic freedoms, and the potential for financial coercion in an increasingly digitized monetary landscape.

China’s Digital Yuan: A Model for Global Financial Surveillance

China is leading the charge in CBDC implementation with the development of the digital yuan, a state-controlled currency integrated into the country’s social credit system. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already begun using the digital yuan to reward or punish citizens based on their compliance with government mandates. Those who engage in activities the government deems “unfavorable,” such as protesting or criticizing the regime, can have their digital yuan restricted or deactivated.

The Western world is following China’s lead. The European Central Bank (ECB) is developing a digital euro, and the Federal Reserve in the United States is researching the feasibility of a digital dollar. While Western governments claim that their CBDCs would not be as restrictive as China’s, the infrastructure for financial control will already be in place. If a future crisis arises, the government would have the ability to instantly impose financial restrictions, restrict purchases, or even confiscate digital money at will.

The Canadian Trucker Protests: A Warning Sign

The dangers of financial control were on full display during the 2022 Canadian trucker protests, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration froze the bank accounts of individuals who donated to the protests against vaccine mandates. This unprecedented move revealed just how easily governments can weaponize financial systems against political opponents. If Canada had a fully implemented CBDC at the time, the government could have instantly frozen the funds of thousands of citizens without due process, eliminating their ability to pay bills, buy groceries, or access financial services.

The Trudeau government justified these actions under the Emergencies Act, claiming it was necessary to maintain order. However, this set a dangerous precedent—if financial censorship can be used against peaceful protesters in Canada, it can be used anywhere. With CBDCs, governments would have the ability to debank individuals in real time, at scale, and without accountability.

How CBDCs Enable Economic Manipulation

Beyond financial surveillance, CBDCs also grant governments the power to manipulate economic behavior in ways that would have been impossible in a cash-based system. Some of the most concerning possibilities include:

1. Negative interest rates and forced spending – Governments could introduce negative interest rates on digital currency holdings, forcing people to spend their money before it loses value, preventing saving and increasing reliance on the state.
2. Restricted purchases based on government policy – In the name of fighting climate change, CBDCs could be programmed to prevent individuals from buying “excessive” amounts of fuel, meat, or other targeted goods.
3. Conditional stimulus payments – Future government stimulus checks could be issued with restrictions on how the money can be spent, ensuring that funds are used in ways that align with government priorities rather than individual needs.

The combination of surveillance, financial censorship, and economic manipulation means that CBDCs are not simply a financial innovation—they are a mechanism for total government control over personal wealth and spending behavior.

Why the Push for CBDCs Is Accelerating

Governments have a strong incentive to phase out cash in favor of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), as such a transition enhances their ability to maximize tax collection, enforce monetary policy with greater precision, and conduct real-time surveillance of financial transactions. In a system where cash is no longer an option, individuals would be compelled to operate exclusively within a centralized financial framework controlled by the state, significantly reducing financial autonomy and privacy.  

Furthermore, influential financial institutions—including the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)—have actively advocated for the adoption of CBDCs, presenting them as essential instruments for combating financial crime and ensuring global economic stability. However, beyond these justifications, the widespread implementation of CBDCs ultimately facilitates the consolidation of economic power within the hands of governments and multinational financial entities, increasing their capacity to regulate, restrict, and oversee financial activity on an unprecedented scale.

IV. Cryptocurrency: The Last Refuge for Financial Sovereignty

As governments transition toward cashless economies and centralized financial oversight, decentralized cryptocurrencies have emerged as a critical alternative for preserving financial autonomy. In contrast to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which facilitate mass financial surveillance and enable state control over monetary policy, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin operate on decentralized, peer-to-peer networks beyond the reach of government authorities. This structural independence allows individuals to maintain financial privacy, circumvent state-imposed economic restrictions, and safeguard wealth without reliance on centralized financial institutions.  

While governments advocate for CBDCs as the future of digital currency, they have simultaneously intensified regulatory efforts against decentralized cryptocurrencies, recognizing them as a challenge to state financial control. Despite increasing regulatory pressures, Bitcoin and other decentralized digital assets have gained traction, particularly in countries experiencing hyperinflation, restrictive financial policies, and government-imposed economic constraints. Their growing adoption underscores the role of decentralized financial systems as a safeguard against state overreach and economic instability.

How Bitcoin Differs from Government-Controlled Digital Money

Bitcoin was designed as a decentralized alternative to traditional banking systems, offering a financial infrastructure that operates independently of government oversight. Unlike Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which grant state authorities full visibility and control over transactions, Bitcoin transactions are verified through a distributed network of independent nodes. This decentralized verification process ensures resistance to financial censorship and state intervention, reinforcing Bitcoin’s role as a sovereign financial asset.  

A defining feature of Bitcoin is its fixed supply—capped at 21 million coins—which distinguishes it from fiat currencies that are subject to inflationary pressures through central bank monetary policies. Unlike traditional currencies, which can be devalued through excessive money printing, Bitcoin adheres to a predetermined issuance schedule, making it inherently resistant to inflationary manipulation. This fixed monetary policy has positioned Bitcoin as a potential hedge against inflation and broader financial instability, particularly in economic environments characterized by currency debasement and monetary expansion.  

Additionally, Bitcoin provides individuals with the ability to store and transfer value without reliance on third-party financial institutions. Traditional banking systems require government-issued identification and institutional approval for account access, whereas Bitcoin enables financial autonomy by allowing users to hold and transact funds independently. As a result, Bitcoin remains one of the few financial instruments that facilitate direct ownership and control over assets, offering a level of financial sovereignty that is increasingly rare in modern digital economies.

How Bitcoin Is Used to Evade Government Financial Restrictions

Bitcoin’s decentralized nature has emerged as a crucial financial instrument for individuals facing restrictive and oppressive economic conditions. Across multiple jurisdictions, Bitcoin has been utilized as a means of circumventing government-imposed capital controls, mitigating the effects of hyperinflation, and resisting financial censorship.  

Venezuela provides a stark example of this phenomenon. With hyperinflation surpassing 1,000,000% due to severe economic mismanagement, the country’s citizens have increasingly turned to Bitcoin as a store of value and a medium of exchange independent of the collapsing national banking system. Despite government-imposed currency controls, Bitcoin has offered an alternative means of wealth preservation, allowing individuals to transact beyond the constraints of the state-controlled financial sector.  

Nigeria presents a similar case, where restrictive monetary policies—including cash withdrawal limits, banking restrictions, and attempted bans on Bitcoin transactions—have driven widespread adoption of decentralized finance. Despite government crackdowns, Bitcoin usage has surged as Nigerians seek financial autonomy. Due to its decentralized structure, Bitcoin remains resistant to enforcement efforts, enabling peer-to-peer transactions even in the absence of state-sanctioned exchanges.  

El Salvador represents a unique instance of state-level adoption, having become the first country to recognize Bitcoin as legal tender. By integrating Bitcoin into its financial system, El Salvador has provided its citizens with an alternative to traditional banking infrastructure while simultaneously challenging the influence of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF has exerted significant pressure on the country to abandon its Bitcoin initiative in favor of continued reliance on centralized global financial networks.  

Beyond national economies, Bitcoin has played a critical role in supporting activists, journalists, and dissidents operating under authoritarian financial regimes. In Russia, China, and Hong Kong, individuals who have spoken out against government policies have faced financial repression, including frozen bank accounts and restricted access to payment systems. Bitcoin’s ability to function as an uncensorable medium of exchange ensures that these individuals can continue receiving funds and conducting transactions despite state-imposed financial blacklisting.  

As governments worldwide continue to expand financial surveillance and impose regulatory constraints on monetary transactions, Bitcoin’s decentralized framework offers a resilient alternative, safeguarding economic agency and financial independence in environments where traditional banking systems serve as instruments of control.

The Regulatory War on Cryptocurrency

Governments worldwide have intensified regulatory measures against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges, recognizing the threat that decentralized digital assets pose to their control over financial systems. These efforts have manifested through legal actions, financial restrictions, and stringent regulatory frameworks designed to curb the anonymity and autonomy that cryptocurrencies afford users.  

In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has pursued legal action against multiple cryptocurrency firms, enforcing stringent *Know Your Customer* (KYC) and *Anti-Money Laundering* (AML) regulations to limit anonymous transactions. Additionally, federal authorities have pressured financial institutions to restrict banking access for crypto-related businesses, effectively constraining the operational capacity of exchanges and reducing avenues for mainstream cryptocurrency adoption.  

The European Union has implemented rigorous oversight measures, mandating that Bitcoin transactions be subject to comprehensive tracking requirements. Under these regulations, cryptocurrency exchanges must collect and report user data, even for minor transactions—an approach that directly undermines one of Bitcoin’s foundational principles: financial privacy.  

China has taken an even more aggressive stance, outright banning cryptocurrency trading and mining. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views Bitcoin as a direct challenge to its ability to control financial transactions and monetary policy. However, despite these prohibitions, Bitcoin transactions persist through decentralized networks, illustrating the inherent resilience of blockchain technology and the limitations of government-imposed bans.  

Beyond national governments, global financial institutions have also expressed concerns over cryptocurrency adoption. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned that widespread Bitcoin usage could destabilize global financial markets. However, a more fundamental issue lies in Bitcoin’s challenge to central banking systems, as its decentralized nature limits the ability of financial authorities to manipulate the money supply—an aspect that makes it particularly unpopular among policymakers and financial elites.  

These regulatory crackdowns reflect a broader struggle between state-controlled financial systems and the emergence of decentralized monetary alternatives. While governments frame their actions as necessary for market stability and consumer protection, the underlying motive remains clear: preserving institutional control over financial transactions in the face of an evolving digital economy.

Why Governments Fear Bitcoin

Bitcoin is more than a financial asset; it represents an alternative monetary system that operates beyond the reach of government control. This characteristic poses a fundamental challenge to states seeking to maintain exclusive authority over money issuance and financial regulation.  

As Bitcoin adoption expands, its implications for state power become increasingly significant. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin limits governments’ ability to enforce capital controls, conduct mass financial surveillance, and manipulate economic behavior through monetary policy. Unlike Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which can be programmed to impose financial restrictions, Bitcoin grants individuals full sovereignty over their wealth, making it one of the most effective instruments for financial autonomy.  

Governments perceive Bitcoin as a threat precisely because it is resistant to censorship, impervious to inflationary debasement, and enables individuals to transact freely without requiring state approval. As the global financial landscape shifts toward greater adoption of CBDCs, the tension between state-controlled financial architectures and decentralized cryptocurrencies will play a defining role in shaping the future of economic freedom.

V. The Fight for Financial Freedom: How to Resist the Cashless Agenda

As governments and financial institutions continue advancing efforts to eliminate cash and implement Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), both individuals and policymakers must adopt proactive measures to safeguard financial privacy and economic autonomy. The shift toward a fully digital, state-controlled financial system is not an inevitability; however, resisting this transition necessitates coordinated and strategic action across multiple levels of governance and economic policy.

Legislative and Policy Initiatives

A critical approach to countering the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is the enactment of legislative measures that safeguard financial autonomy. In the United States, lawmakers have introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, which seeks to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a direct-to-consumer CBDC. Similar legislative initiatives should be advanced at both state and federal levels to prevent the government from mandating digital-only transactions or gradually eliminating cash as a viable means of exchange.  

Additionally, policymakers should enact legal protections ensuring the right to use cash, thereby preventing businesses from being compelled to adopt cashless operations. Furthermore, financial privacy laws should be strengthened to limit government oversight of digital transactions, ensuring that financial institutions cannot share personal spending data with regulatory agencies without due process. By implementing these measures, legislators can uphold financial freedom while mitigating the risks associated with excessive state control over monetary systems.

Encouraging Businesses to Continue Accepting Cash

A critical component of resisting the transition toward a fully cashless economy is the preservation of cash as a viable medium of exchange. Encouraging businesses to continue accepting physical currency, rather than mandating digital payment systems, is essential in maintaining financial autonomy and consumer choice. Widespread use of cash by both businesses and consumers creates a structural barrier against government efforts to justify its elimination, thereby safeguarding transactional privacy and limiting state overreach in financial matters.

Adopting Decentralized Financial Systems

Individuals can safeguard their financial autonomy by diversifying their assets and utilizing decentralized financial instruments that operate independently of government-controlled banking systems. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin offer a viable alternative to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), enabling individuals to store and transfer wealth without reliance on state-backed financial networks. By adopting peer-to-peer transactions and self-custody wallets, individuals can retain direct control over their finances, mitigating the risks associated with dependence on centralized banking institutions that may be subject to regulatory pressures or government-imposed restrictions.  

Furthermore, adopting privacy-focused financial practices—such as utilizing non-custodial wallets, minimizing reliance on major financial institutions, and supporting the development of decentralized financial technologies—can help preserve financial sovereignty. Advocacy for decentralized financial infrastructure and digital privacy protections will be essential in ensuring that financial autonomy is maintained in an increasingly regulated and digitized economic landscape.

Raising Public Awareness and Building Resistance

Combating financial surveillance necessitates both public awareness and active civic engagement. While governments promote cashless policies under the pretext of convenience, efficiency, and security, the broader implications—particularly the expansion of state oversight into all financial transactions—are frequently absent from mainstream discourse.  

Raising awareness about the risks associated with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), supporting organizations that advocate for financial privacy, and pushing for legislative safeguards are critical steps in resisting policies that erode financial autonomy. The transition toward a fully digital, state-controlled monetary system is not inevitable; its success depends on public acquiescence. By minimizing reliance on centralized financial institutions, embracing decentralized financial alternatives, and demanding stronger legal protections for financial privacy, individuals can push back against the encroachment of financial surveillance and safeguard economic freedom for future generations.

VI. Conclusion

The global shift toward a cashless society and government-controlled digital currencies represents more than just a technological advancement—it is a deliberate effort to expand financial surveillance and curtail economic autonomy. Under the guise of modernization, efficiency, and security, governments and central banks are systematically reducing cash accessibility, increasing transaction monitoring, and laying the groundwork for programmable digital money. Once fully implemented, Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will grant states unprecedented authority to track, regulate, and potentially restrict financial transactions, effectively eliminating financial privacy as it currently exists.  

This transition is not an isolated development but a coordinated global initiative. China’s digital yuan, which is integrated into the country’s social credit system, exemplifies the potential for digital currencies to be used as tools of economic control. Similarly, the European Union’s push for a digital euro, coupled with stringent cash transaction limits, reflects a broader trend of forcing citizens into fully monitored financial networks. In contrast, decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin remain one of the few avenues for preserving financial sovereignty, enabling individuals to store and transfer value outside of state-controlled institutions.  

However, the transition to a fully digital, government-regulated financial system is not inevitable. Preventing this shift requires legal protections for cash transactions, corporate resistance against pressures to eliminate cash-based commerce, and widespread adoption of decentralized financial tools that safeguard economic freedom. Without meaningful resistance, financial privacy risks becoming a relic of the past, with governments wielding absolute control over how, when, and where individuals can engage in economic activity. The time to act is now.

Sources

Parsa, N. (2024). The consumer’s right of withdrawal in case of payment with Bitcoin in the laws of Iran and the European Union. Private Law Research. Retrieved from https://jplr.atu.ac.ir/article_17968_en.html.

Samonte, M. J. C., Ibarreta, M. V. O. (2024). The European push for a digital euro and financial regulation. IEEE. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10795842.

Surajo, A. Z., Mohammed, F., & Umar, A. S. (2023). Public reaction to redesigning and redistribution of Nigerian currency by the Central Bank of Nigeria: Implications for national security. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387722231.

Timilehin, O. (2024). The battle for control in the era of digital currency. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387518366.

U.S. Congress. (2023). CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1122.