important intellectual question is whether the limitations of these approaches that have been revealed in the past can be sufficiently overcome, either within each pillar or through their combination. the fact that support for reforms of the structural variety has been growing during the past year ’ s policy debate suggests to me that many thoughtful people have given at least a tentative negative answer to that question. of course, the specifics of a good number of these proposals have yet to be formulated, and judgment of the merits must await their further development, insofar as the details will determine whether a proposal is likely both to be effective and to have manageable unintended consequences. speaking personally, however, i think that we should not become unrealistically demanding in seeking specification of such proposals, particularly when a proposal itself provides for ongoing refinement. for example, my sense is that the provision in the house bill that would empower banking regulators to prevent acquisitions that would increase systemic risk could be sensibly and effectively elaborated over time. we should also be thinking more seriously about ensuring that safety and soundness requirements for some types of activities – residential mortgage lending comes to mind – apply throughout the financial system, without regard to the regulated status of the lender. second, having just noted the promise of measures beyond what i have termed the consensus agenda, i also want to emphasize the importance of its elements. without better capital requirements, a horizontal approach to supervising the largest financial institutions, and a sophisticated macroprudential complement to traditional bank and bank holding company supervision, the regulatory system is unlikely to deliver on a promise of greater financial stability. similarly, legislative proposals to make a workable resolution mechanism and prudential regulation applicable to all systemically important firms are necessary to achieving the same goal. indeed, the resolution mechanism is critical to strengthening market discipline sufficiently so that it can truly take its place alongside rules and supervisory oversight as a strong third pillar of the financial regulatory system. third, having made the case for extensive change, i want to add a cautionary note. even as we improve and reorient regulation, we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal. today we are all mindful of the economic devastation that can ensue when a financial system goes badly awry. but financial stability alone is not the aim of financial regulation. it is instead a stable financial system within which capital is efficiently directed to creditworthy consumers and businesses who need it, as well as a system that offers good savings and investment vehicles

the best uses for emerging technologies. as an example, the federal reserve is working to improve the current system through the introduction of instant or fast payments via the fednow service. 2 the service will be designed to maintain uninterrupted processing — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year — with security features that will ensure payment integrity and data security. the target launch date is sometime in 2023. * the federal reserve is also doing its part to examine the role of new technologies. experiments with central bank digital currencies ( cbdcs ) are being conducted at the board of governors, as well as complementary efforts by the federal reserve bank of boston in collaboration with researchers at mit. in addition, a recent report from the bank for international settlements and a group of seven central banks, which includes the fed, assessed the feasibility of cbdcs in helping central banks deliver their public policy objectives. 3 relevant to today ’ s topic, one of the three key principles highlighted in the report is that a cbdc needs to coexist with cash and other types of money in a flexible and innovative payment system. 1 / 2 bis central bankers'speeches improvements in the global payments system will come not just from the public sector, but from the private sector as well. as today ’ s second panel, “ of lions and unicorns, ” described, the private sector has the experience and expertise to develop consumer - facing infrastructure that improves and simplifies how the public engages with the financial system. digitalization of financial services, combined with an improved consumer experience, can help increase financial inclusion, particularly in countries or areas with a large unbanked population. and the last two panels of the day, “ addressing legal barriers to cross - border payments ” and “ harmonised data to oil the cross - border payments machinery, ” highlight that improving the system must be a collaborative effort. by definition, cross - border payments involve multiple jurisdictions. so it will only be through countries working together, via all of the international forums — the group of seven, the g - 20, the cpmi, the fsb, and others — that solutions will be possible. and, finally, it is only by engaging all stakeholders — policymakers, private - sector participants, and academia — as this conference is doing, that we will achieve the improved payments ecosystem we are striving toward. the covid crisis has brought into even sharper focus the need to address the limitations