CoachKandSportsguy |
01-05-2024 06:14 AM |
Looking at the risk profile:
Physical currency has physical risks, which are primarily local in nature. Risks are on the vendor and the consumer for physical theft prevention, including physical transport from vendor to bank and vice versa.
Digital currency has digital risks, which are unlimited in geography, meaning risk is now worldwide, and physical, need BOTH electricity AND an internet connection. Digital currency also needs a better help desk as banks aren't the only source of transactions. Also, digital means that the risk of internal employee theft still exists, eliminating human access will always be impossible. And the physical risk now is transferred to data centers and data back up locations being kept safe.
There are costs associated with each one: with physical currency, you bear the cost. with a digital currency, you the consumer and you the vendor do not bear the risk, but pay for the risk. But whomever controls the system controls the cost and the access, and since the system is controlled by humans with computers, not just computers by them selves, users of digital currency has given up local control to many, many more interested parties. . .
The best answer is still both, but the complete conversion to digital would also render most of the dollars in the underground trades EITHER worthless or very valuable to continue with the drug trade outside of any tracking. . . depending upon your view point
there is no free lunch, and the best option is for both currencies, so that you get to keep your freedom of choice.
Sweden is small country, lots of processes work well in small quantities, but doesn't scale well, ie has limits to how far it can scale. . digital currency just might be one of them for the US currency.
|