The EU is working on a #DigitalEuro. The Commission already published its proposal last year, the #EUCouncil is currently discussing its version. But what are they talking about? I looked at working documents from recent months for [@netzpolitik_feed](https://chaos.social/@netzpolitik_feed ).
A few points of discussion:
- The Commission proposed exemptions for transaction monitoring for offline transactions, because there is no anti-money laundering monitoring for cash either and that's the idea behind the offline Digital Euro. The documents show that #Italy, #Portugal and #Lithuania were sceptical with this idea.
- On the other hand, #France recently published a non-paper in which it calls for extending the exemptions to all "proximity" payments, so for example payments in stores. Why? Because users don't care about whether a payment is online or offline, they care about what situation they're trying to use the Euro in.
- Another topic is the "single access point" that the #EuropeanCentralBank #ECB would be able to open under the Commission's proposal. This, the Commission argues, is necessary to allow users to switch between payment providers. #Germany doesn't seem to be a big fan and wanted some further explanations.
https://netzpolitik.org/2024/eu-council-discusses-digital-euro-and-how-much-privacy-should-it-be/
Maximilian Henning /
npub1ed…sdjrt
2024-07-05 12:35:00
Author Public Key
npub1ed8p36qljqqp9z3su68ghhda6rs9gdmqwz26gzu5wghwujndqxssksdjrtSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2024-07-05 12:35:00Event JSON
{
"id": "4478345e91e1a6ddf4eb691e22e7193194c5b4e327e4424192d1130a89cb8208",
"pubkey": "cb4e18e81f9000128a30e68e8bddbdd0e05437607095a40b94722eee4a6d01a1",
"created_at": 1720182900,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"germany"
],
[
"t",
"europeancentralbank"
],
[
"t",
"ecb"
],
[
"t",
"italy"
],
[
"t",
"lithuania"
],
[
"t",
"digitaleuro"
],
[
"p",
"5babb02879e2a53caab311310efc17b8aa79f2c4983f4ec66b05e44d74925313"
],
[
"t",
"france"
],
[
"t",
"portugal"
],
[
"t",
"eucouncil"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://darmstadt.social/@zarasophos/112733906565370597",
"web"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://darmstadt.social/users/zarasophos/statuses/112733906565370597",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://darmstadt.social/users/zarasophos/statuses/112733906565370597",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"expiration",
"1722775152"
]
],
"content": "The EU is working on a #DigitalEuro. The Commission already published its proposal last year, the #EUCouncil is currently discussing its version. But what are they talking about? I looked at working documents from recent months for [@netzpolitik_feed](https://chaos.social/@netzpolitik_feed ). \n\nA few points of discussion:\n\n- The Commission proposed exemptions for transaction monitoring for offline transactions, because there is no anti-money laundering monitoring for cash either and that's the idea behind the offline Digital Euro. The documents show that #Italy, #Portugal and #Lithuania were sceptical with this idea.\n\n- On the other hand, #France recently published a non-paper in which it calls for extending the exemptions to all \"proximity\" payments, so for example payments in stores. Why? Because users don't care about whether a payment is online or offline, they care about what situation they're trying to use the Euro in.\n\n- Another topic is the \"single access point\" that the #EuropeanCentralBank #ECB would be able to open under the Commission's proposal. This, the Commission argues, is necessary to allow users to switch between payment providers. #Germany doesn't seem to be a big fan and wanted some further explanations.\n\nhttps://netzpolitik.org/2024/eu-council-discusses-digital-euro-and-how-much-privacy-should-it-be/",
"sig": "175d98859f488135d8d770b2b881819e72c88b757683a65d0619058bfa484d2909c70aa17188e66d11dc7ab263ab09e205345bb5df790851552ebf870d04a423"
}