Some have suggested tiered remuneration for different holding amounts in order to influence incentives and ensure appropriate integration into the monetary system.10 In the case of stablecoins, central banks don’t directly control interest that might be paid on these instruments. However, incentives created by remuneration policies could have important influences on the structure and relative demand for private and public digital currencies. Depending on how the regulatory and policy environment for financial innovation evolves, stablecoins could be issued by banks or other regulated entities that could have access to interest-bearing accounts at central banks. In this case, the rate of remuneration stablecoin issuers earn on their accounts might influence the rate paid to stablecoin holders, and the role of the instruments in the broader monetary ecosystem.11 Of course, implementation issues are not the only important consideration for remuneration of digital currencies, but it should be one consideration. Choices about the remuneration of new central bank liabilities, like CBDC, and of the accounts of private stablecoin issuers, could have an important influence on the incentives created by monetary policy implementation frameworks. Given this, central banks should take a holistic approach to considering the impact of their remuneration policies on the ecosystem of both private and public currencies. Pillar 2: Liquidity supply This brings me to the second pillar of interest rate control: liquidity supply. In order for central banks’ remuneration rates to effectively achieve interest rate control, central banks supply reserves in appropriate quantities to achieve the interest rate target.

In terms of its composition, moreover, the draft Budget has most of the adjustment falling on public spending. And this, on past experience, raises the effectiveness of the consolidation strategy. Yet the presence of risks threatening the attainment of these targets should not be understated. The Budget is based on a macroeconomic scenario of significant recovery which, if not confirmed, might lead to a revenue path worse than projected. As I said, if this were the case, offsetting measures should immediately be applied. But perhaps the biggest risk to general government meeting its targets stems from the potential deviations that may arise at the regional and local government level. As known and reiterated on many occasions, the high decentralisation of public spending in Spain means that the collaboration of the regional and local governments is essential for achieving budgetary stability. At the end of this year it will be possible to make a full assessment of the consolidation drive made by the regional budgets, but my impression is that, as matters stand today, the measures announced by most regional and local governments far from respond to the reduction in public spending needed. I therefore believe formulas must be sought to strengthen regional and local government commitment to budgetary stability and to encourage compliance. In this respect, we should not rule out a revision and strengthening of the national budgetary framework, in particular in the case of regional and local governments, a framework that resides essentially on the Budgetary Stability Law.