central banks have guaranteed price stability for many decades, even during the pandemic crisis, despite consumer price changes having flirted with deflation in recent years as well as the fact that, in the euro area, we are still struggling to bring inflation back to our medium - term target. our monopoly power over the supply of base money and our credibility have been key in this respect. but what would happen to inflation in an economy in which there is wide circulation of private money beyond the control of central banks, for example due to a significant presence of digital currencies denominated in a foreign currency or in a 2 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches basket of different currencies? we are now quite close to where, two decades ago, the oecd expected us to be, as money appears inevitably to be becoming digital. and central banks and other public authorities alike are asking themselves the aforementioned questions, attempting to govern the opportunities and risks arising from digital money by adopting new regulations and new approaches. in europe, the european commission is drafting a new directive to regulate issuers and service providers of crypto - assets, while the european central bank is currently considering the possibility of starting a formal investigation phase on a digital euro. similar initiatives are ongoing in most other jurisdictions : most of the monetary authorities around the world are working today on the possible development of a central bank digital currency, ranging from mere conceptual research to preliminary experiments, proofs - ofconcept or pilot projects. * * * let me conclude. in 1999, in a speech on hayek and currency competition, otmar issing asserted that money is like a language : a convention that facilitates the interaction among individuals when they produce, trade and consume. as money becomes digital, a new monetary language will gradually emerge and international coordination will be essential so that, as we do today, we can all continue to speak a common language. but money is not just language, it is also substance. its key ingredient is trust. preserving it – in a world that, as mark carney clearly described, is becoming more “ decentralized ” and polarized – must therefore be our polestar when we regulate private forms of money or design a new digital outside money. this is why this year, under the italian presidency, the g20 will continue to consider the technological, economic, legal, regulatory and oversight issues related to global stable - coins as well as potential benefits and risks from central bank digital currencies, also

depositors at par, in fiat, and on demand. this in turn will determine the nature – stability of value and liquidity – of the assets backing a stablecoin used for systemic payment systems and the legal, technical and operational arrangements for ensuring the requirement can be met. needless to say, such a requirement is a long way from the world of terra and luna. there are a number of other, similarly key, requirements in the guidance which i will not detail here – for example the need for a responsible and accountable legal entity behind the operation and for governance arrangements which allow for timely human intervention, ensuring that expert judgement and decision making is available to deal with unforeseen circumstances. the guidance also provides considerations for what should be considered systemically important in this context, though i should note that all payment systems are encouraged to observe the pfmi. the point is that in this one area of the financial system, systemic payments, we are engaged in the work to deliver “ same risk, same regulatory outcome ”. stablecoins used primarily for payment are just one element of the crypto - ecosystem. for the ‘ same risk, same regulatory outcome ’ approach to be effective, it needs to be carried forward across international standards and those standards need to be incorporated into domestic regulatory regimes. similar work is also in train in other areas. the basel committee on banking standards is in the process of issuing guidance on the prudential treatment of cryptoassets held by banks [ 6 ]. iosco is looking at the application of the standards for investor protection and market integrity across cryptoassets, exchanges and platforms for lending and trading [ 7 ]. these international standard setting bodies are working closely together on stablecoins to ensure we understand how we treat similar risks in different regulatory regimes and how the regimes might interact with each other. all of this this work is being closely co - ordinated by the financial stability board ( fsb ), which, as it set out in yesterday ’ s statement [ 8 ], is working to ensure cryptoassets are subject to robust regulation and consultation. the fsb will publish a consultation report later this year with recommendations for promoting international consistency in regulatory and supervisory approaches to non - stablecoin cryptoassets, markets and exchanges as well as for strengthening international coordination in this area. and, putting on my domestic hat, given that the the bank of england is responsible for regulation and supervision of systemic payment systems in the uk