cbdc must be sufficiently well understood and anticipated before the introduction of cbdc for retail purposes can be considered. motivations for a wholesale cbdc are of a different nature. we already begin to observe a tokenization of financial assets ( securities or means of settlement ) exchanged between financial actors. the risk there is that such a trend leads to disorderly approaches and heterogeneous adaptations of market infrastructures, in particular when it comes to the modalities of settlement. several initiatives or projects are in effect considered by the industry in the post - trade area, pointing to the role central banks could play in this regard, as they have done in the past. against this background, the potential role of a wholesale cbdc is in my view worth considering if not desirable. 5 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches but all in all, i would say that, whatever the final orientations taken, we shouldn ’ t refrain from experimenting the different forms of cbdc. another contribution for central banks could be to help address one the major failings of the current payment systems which is cross - border retail payments, which is one of the drivers of the development of crypto - assets. one solution to the weaknesses of private initiatives in the field of cross - border payments could be to interconnect these systems. it is technically and legally feasible for a given area, for example, in the euro zone. however, at the global scale, between systems of different areas, it is more complex, in particular when several currencies are involved. another domain where progress can be made is promoting the adoption of common international industry standards facilitating the interoperability of payment systems at global scale. in particular, it would be necessary to foster the harmonization of domestic and international regulations with respect to aml / ctf, kyc. developing support programs for countries with underdeveloped payment infrastructures could also enhance financial inclusion by strengthening the development of local domestic and cross - border payment systems. we need to work further on these important issues – and will do so. in conclusion, it is hard to anticipate the role that crypto - assets might play in the payment system of the future, especially since the characteristics and features of these assets look set to change considerably. while it is clear that crypto - assets undergoing technical and economic trials bring about opportunities to improve our payment systems, they can also bring material risks to our payment systems which, if unaddressed, might introduce new sources

to more than 19 300 euros in december 2017 and has since fallen down to 7400 euros in september this year. and stablecoins represent an imperfect improvement in this field : their value aims to be relatively stable based on backed assets, but in fact fluctuates, in particular if they are not backed on safe assets. as a result, very few prices are denominated in cryptoassets and not many large brick - and - mortar or online retailers accept bitcoin for example, although there are some exceptions [ i. e. showroomprive. com, france ’ s second largest flash sale web retailer, which has accepted bitcoins since 2014 ]. second, as intermediaries in exchanges, crypto - assets are far less effective than a settlement asset with legal tender status, insofar as ( i ) their price volatility makes it hard to use them as a means of payment, ( ii ) they generate transaction fees that are far too high for simple retail transactions ( for instance, the redemption fee on tether is 3 % ), and ( iii ) they offer no guarantee of a refund in the event of fraud. 3 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches third, the fact that they have no intrinsic value and that they offer no guarantee that they can be converted at par upon demand with commercial bank money or central bank money means that they cannot be used to create trustworthy stores of value. in addition, crypto - assets « front end » and « back - end » payment arrangements are significantly exposed to risks of various nature, including legal, financial, operational and compliance risk with money laundering and terrorist financing, consumer and investor protection, which need to be seriously addressed if they are not to become the « weak links » in our payment systems, with the risk that they undermine the safety of the whole payment chain. from that perspective, stablecoins of potential large size and reach may pose additional challenges of system - wide importance, to competition policy, financial and monetary stability. ii - public policy challenges, in particular for central banks, and how to address them. 1 - in that context, various courses of action are available to the public authorities. the first would be to ignore crypto - assets. but even if the volumes in play remain small and do not represent a threat to financial stability, the risks that i mentioned earlier must be addressed. this is all the more true for stablecoins which raise the most serious issues