central counterparties is quite clearly a monetary policy responsibility. i fail to understand those insinuating that we are expanding our mandate. monetary policy has to deal with those entities where liquidity is collected and pooled. if we didn ’ t take care of this, we would be recklessly negligent of our mandate. how concerned are you about the rising value of bitcoin? is it a risk to financial stability? first of all, bitcoin turnover is between €250 and €350 billion. the volume is therefore comparatively low. that ’ s why bitcoin trading is not at present an issue for monetary policy. regarding the increase in price, we are seeing speculative hype that might be a cause for concern. but of course individual investors are free to gamble. however, if something goes wrong, they should not come to us and say we should have outlawed it and protected them from themselves. second, there are now banks which hold positions in bitcoin. it is a matter for the supervisors to judge how big the risks are. third, and what concerns me most, is when financial market infrastructures such as stock exchanges enter this business. that poses a major threat to financial stability. so you don ’ t think much of bitcoin futures and other recent developments? if these transactions are kept separate from others, it ’ s a secondary matter who wins and who loses. however, if all the participants in these financial centres are jointly liable, that can create difficulties, for instance, for banks or the whole system. and if the banking system gets into trouble, there will again be demands for support from the ecb. i would say from the outset : we shouldn ’ t do this. do you think that private cryptocurrencies could become a real alternative to central bank money? 4 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches money needs trust. public currencies, for example the euro, have the backing of public institutions such as the ecb. many of these currencies have no backing, nothing. it ’ s a somewhat different matter for the underlying technology, the blockchain. that ’ s a challenge we all have to face, especially banks. each institution has to know that in the future financial intermediation will no longer be heaven - sent, but has to be fought for. bundesbank executive board member carl - ludwig thiele has raised hopes for a return of the €500 banknote. the governing

programme trends towards zero. so far there has been a one - sided promise to increase qe “ in terms of size and / or duration ”, i. e. maintain the “ easing bias ”, if the outlook for inflation worsens or financing conditions become unduly tight. it ’ s certainly a valid question to ask whether a promise that has a near - zero probability should continue to be made. indeed, in the short term the risks to growth and inflation are more on the upside, meaning that both could turn out to be higher than currently forecast. so it makes increasingly less sense to give a one - sided signal that addresses the eventuality of the situation unexpectedly deteriorating. so there is certainly scope for adjusting our communication on the easing bias soon. to a certain extent, this has already been done with the statement about our greater confidence in the path of inflation. in addition, it is clear that the net purchases are becoming less important compared with the holdings on the central bank ’ s balance sheet, the reinvestments and forward guidance. this will no doubt be reflected in our communication as well. if qe comes to an end in 2018, would it be sufficient to start communicating on this in the 1 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches summer, or would preparations have to start earlier? it shouldn ’ t be left until the very last minute – the markets should be prepared in a proactive and ongoing way. this is important so that we avoid false expectations and short - term market turbulence. it would certainly be appropriate to take a position on this point before summer 2018. would there need to be a gradual winding - down from €30 billion, a “ tapering ”, or could the ecb drop to zero in one step? we haven ’ t yet gone through the various options in the governing council. the expert committees will also need to be involved in the preparations. our aim is not to cause an unnecessary stir in the markets, and we will stick to this position. the markets were recently hoping for more information about how the reduction to €30 billion would be distributed between the individual purchase programmes. doesn ’ t the governing council need to provide more guidance on this? we will continue to purchase mainly public sector bonds, and the rest will be invested in private sector instruments. corporate sector purchases will probably account for a slightly larger share, as we won ’ t necessarily reduce these purchases proportionally. but the exact composition of the €30 billion will depend on the situation in