Market
What will be the primary reason cited by U.S. officials for not pursuing a CBDC in 2025?
3
Resolution / Starting Odds
Lack of necessity • 25%
Security concerns • 25%
Economic stability • 25%
Other • 25%
Statements from U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve officials
Story
Trump's Treasury Nominee Scott Bessent Opposes U.S. CBDC at Senate Hearing, Contrasts with China
Jan 16, 2025, 06:37 PM
Scott Bessent, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Treasury Secretary, expressed strong opposition to the idea of a U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC) during his Senate confirmation hearing. Bessent argued that CBDCs are suitable for countries with limited investment alternatives, stating, 'I see no reason for the U.S. to have a central bank digital currency.' He emphasized that the U.S. has no need for such a currency, contrasting with other nations like China that have pursued CBDCs out of necessity. Bessent also mentioned a '2025 approach' to digital currencies in the context of addressing terrorist financing, suggesting a modern outlook on the issue.
View original story
Similar markets
Security Concerns • 25%
Economic Impact • 25%
Lack of Necessity • 25%
Other • 25%
National security • 25%
Economic freedom • 25%
Other • 25%
Hedge against inflation • 25%
Regulatory issues • 25%
Lack of public trust • 25%
Market competition • 25%
Technological challenges • 25%
To stabilize the dollar • 25%
To boost crypto market clout • 25%
Other • 25%
To diversify national reserves • 25%
Economic competitiveness • 25%
Other • 25%
Technological advancement • 25%
Financial stability • 25%
Regulatory concerns • 25%
Economic benefits • 25%
Inflation concerns • 25%
Technological feasibility • 25%
Technological Advancement • 25%
Other • 25%
Economic Stability • 25%
National Security • 25%
Strengthen US dollar • 25%
Reduce national debt • 25%
Economic leverage • 25%
Other • 25%
No Intrinsic Value • 25%
Used for Illegal Activities • 25%
Ponzi Scheme • 25%
Other • 25%
Statutory mandate concerns • 25%
Operational scope differences • 25%
Political pressure • 25%
Other • 25%
Strong opposition • 25%
Neutral • 25%
Supportive of exploration • 25%
Proactive development • 25%