Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are often framed as a threat to privacy.

And they are.

CBDCs are programmable money. If implemented “incorrectly,” they would allow governments to trace every cup of coffee, every donation, every trip you take. Within today’s technological capabilities it is even possible to pre-determine the use of the currency. Imagine receiving your salary but being unable to spend it on certain goods, locations, or services. That is dangerously close to a financial panopticon.

But I remember when we first thought about CBDCs

At Itsavirus we’ve always been ahead of the curve, active in the web3 space since 2015. Back then, our discussions about CBDCs revolved around a very different possibility: that they could be used to keep governments transparent. A democratic dream.

We did not even consider the idea of a currency designed to control citizens. Because control should not flow downwards; it should flow upwards, towards the institutions that hold power, especially when that power is democratically granted!

Can it be done?

From a technical perspective: yes.

Privacy-preserving tools like blind signatures and zero-knowledge proofs make it possible to design CBDCs that protect day-to-day payments from surveillance. At the same time, government wallets and flows (taxes collected, subsidies paid, contracts executed) could be made fully auditable, by default. It’s all a matter of design / political choices.

• Corruption and waste would become much harder to hide.
• Citizens could literally follow their money.
• Governments would deliver full transparency.

The obstacles are not technical, they are political

So why is surveillance the default, and transparency the exception?

Why would a government choose to control its citizens instead of moving towards a more idealistic perspective? Is it simply a lack of vision, or something more deliberate?

For people who already distrust central governments, the way institutions talk about CBDCs only deepens the suspicion. It does little to rebuild confidence (to put it lightly).

Do governments benefit from opacity? Undeniably. Corruption, inefficiency, and rent-seeking thrive in the dark. And central banks, cautious by nature, often find it safer to design CBDCs that watch citizens rather than risk exposing the inefficiencies of the state itself.

If CBDCs are inevitable, then we must demand more than “light” privacy protections. We must demand designs that preserve cash-like privacy for citizens while exposing every cent of public money to sunlight.

Because the real promise of CBDCs is not to tighten control of people. It’s to strengthen control of power.

Technology is neutral. The design choices are not.