disputes between representatives of Western states
regarding the introduction of digital money under the
authority of the state are increasing.
Domestic scientists and government representati
ves form basic principles for forming CBDC. In 2020
a report on the role of the digital ruble, its features and
capabilities was published on the Bank of Russia
website, which confirmed the concern of the
authorities and the duality of meanings for the
country's economy. E.L. Sidorenko sees the digital
currency of central banks as a new means of
transporting money, a kind of alternative to non-cash
payments. At the same time, commercial banks retain
all the advantages of non-cash funds: both a transfer
mechanism through the registers of a commercial
bank, and the ability to track payments (Sidorenko E.
L., 2021). Dobrinskaya D.E., Martynenko T.S.consi
der digitalization processes as a phenomenon of soci
al inequality, since Russia has a problem of digital
accessibility and the inability of some segments of the
population to consume technology (Dobrinskaya
D.E., Martynenko T.S., 2019).
Having studied reports of central banks of foreign
states, the opinions of scientists and national
documents, we can conclude that the research topic is
relevant, since today there is no clear understanding
of conversion consequences of the national currency
for all states.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Digital currency is a continuation of the era of plastic
cards, electronic money, cryptocurrency and bitcoins.
With the growing demand for electronic money, the
supply is rising. In this case we are talking about
private commercial institutions. Digital currencies
can be centrally managed, when one firm controls the
processes, for example, Facebook created the Libra
digital currency. The principles of decentralized
governance have cryptocurrencies based on
distributed ledgers, transaction records. In this case,
the more people who want to create a digital currency,
regardless of the form of organization, the more
difficult it becomes to exercise control by the state, to
assess their reliability and liquidity for the Central
Bank, because at the moment there is no single
methodology for assessing data. Thus, the question
arises about the centralized electronic currency
(hereinafter CBDC), which is controlled and issued,
like tangible money, by the main bank of the country
(Fig. 4).
Figure 4: Types of centralized digital currency.
In general, the digital currency of the Central
Bank can be defined as an electronic obligation of the
central bank, expressed in the national currency and
acting as a medium of exchange and storage of value.
At the same time, CBDC should be considered as a
new form of central bank money, different from
traditional central bank money and presented either in
the form of cash or in the form of money in reserve
and bank accounts with the central bank (Kochergin
D., Yangirova AI, 2019) ... Central Bank digital
currency is an electronic form of central bank money
that could be used more widely by households and
businesses to make payments and store valuables
(Bank of England, 2020). The concept of digital
currency is considered by the Institute of Banking
Policy, so the reporting document states that "...
CBDC is a digital payment instrument denominated
in the national unit of account, which is a direct
obligation of the central bank ..." (Bank policy
institute, 2020).
In order to determine the nature of changes with
the introduction of CBDC, let us turn to the main
properties of money, namely, in this case, technology.
If we talk about digital currency, then its functioning
is supposed to be based on tokens, and not on
accounts as when dealing with cash. In this case, the
key difference between tokens and accounts is their
verification: the person receiving the token verifies
the authenticity of the token, while the intermediary
verifies the identity of the account holder (Green
(2008) and Kahn and Roberts (2009)). However, the
definition of tokens varies considerably across
academic fields, and other reports differentiate
between value or account-based CBDC forms (e.g.
Sveriges Riksbank (2018) and Norges Bank (2018))
(Barontini Ch., Holden H., 2019). The uncertainty of
the scale and level of penetration of a possible
monetary instrument gives rise to speculations about
possible benefits and risks for the economy.
If we take into account the general availability of
the population to digital currency, based on the speed
of transfer, the absolute advantage of the innovation
is the elimination of additional transfer
intermediaries, both within the territorial boundaries
of the country and in cross-border transactions. But if
the risk lies in the increased load on the Central Bank
of the country, it is responsible for the execution of