monetary instruments that could, in the future, be significant for policy implementation. in the private sector, a broad range of digital assets are emerging. a subset of those digital assets, known as stablecoins, could over time be used by consumers and businesses as money, if they serve as a safe means of payment, a store of value, and a unit of account. 2 some jurisdictions are considering bringing these kinds of instruments into the regulatory framework by requiring their issuers to become banks or other licensed entities. 3 this could enhance the ability to safely integrate them into the payments system. it could also expand access to central bank accounts and services to new entrants, allowing the stablecoins to be backed by the most liquid and stable of assets : central bank reserves. traditional commercial banks are also forming consortiums and partnering with digital innovation firms to increase their offerings of liabilities associated with digital activities, which might entail offering deposits to stablecoin issuers or even direct issuance of stablecoins. many are also investing in distributed ledger activities that could transform their businesses. preliminary analysis of the may 2022 senior financial officer survey suggests that most u. s. global systemically important banks ( gsibs ) expect growth and development in these areas to be a medium or high priority over the next couple of years, and banks continue to explore these areas to see how they fit into their business strategies. 4 central banks are also innovating. many are implementing new forms of payments or experimenting with central bank digital currencies ( cbdcs ) to prepare for the future. currently, over 60 jurisdictions have launched faster payment services. 5 in addition, central banks are building expertise and investing in technology to examine the potential applicability of cbdcs. 6 monetary policy implementation in an evolving monetary system as we consider the potential impact of this array of innovations, it is useful to start with a view into the current monetary system. for decades, central bank reserve balances have been the safest and most liquid asset, at the core of a smoothly operating financial system. most economies operate with two - tier monetary systems, in which households and businesses hold and make payments regulation, supervision, and deposit insurance help keep commercial bank money safe. in turn, deposits fund growth in the economy through loans to households and businesses. and central banks provide liquidity backstops to ensure that the banking system can meet its liquidity obligations to the public. most policy implementation frameworks around the world are

instead be assumed by the institutions and the general public which invests in these funds. in the event that the value of the funds decreases the investors will suffer. this may in turn affect their behaviour in the economy, for instance it may reduce their consumption and also the value of property. we have not yet seen any such situation so the outcome is unclear, but we should not neglect the risks. another form of transferral of risks is taking place in the financial sector. through the use of new instruments and structures it has become easier to transfer and redistribute risks. for instance, a bank may deem that it has too much exposure to one customer or to a sector. it could then divest itself of this risk through credit risk derivatives or by securitisation. the advantage from a financial stability view is that the risks become more widely dispersed between the various holders and that the individual bank can build a well - balanced portfolio. but at the same time a new risk has emanated – the risk that the new holder of the risk cannot fulfil his obligations. in the event that there is a credit default, the seller of the derivative to the bank may not have the necessary financial means. or, there could be an unclear legal position about the risk transfer agreement. such events might mean that the bank would have to suffer a loss although it thought it had protected itself. the conclusion is that the authorities must force the banks to assess whether the risk buyers have adequate financial and organisational capabilities and whether the legal arrangements are robust. as in many other countries, there is a strong tendency in the swedish financial sector to move from “ bricks and mortar ”, such as having many branch offices, to providing their services through the internet and telephone. about half of all payments of companies and physical persons in sweden are made through the internet and by phone. this has made it possible to increase bank efficiency in terms of staff numbers and branches. each swedish bank branch now services an average of 4, 700 persons in the population compared to, for instance, only 1, 900 being serviced by the german banks ’ branches in germany. of course, each country is free to choose its own service level and may prefer a higher level, although it brings higher costs. modern regulation in my view, sweden abolished its old - fashioned regulations for good reasons. using the banks for directed lending and for other non - commercial purposes may seem handy for the government, but entails large risks and costs.