- The Digital Euro's Public Good Focus: Christine Lagarde highlights that the digital euro is not tied to banking interests but serves as a platform for financial inclusion, focusing on stability, monetary sovereignty, and access to central bank money without replacing traditional banks' deposits or undermining the system.
- Digitization's Impact on Privacy: The digitization process erodes privacy by migrating essential services from private institutions to platforms that exclude those without access or digital literacy. This leads to increased surveillance through Big Tech companies instead of protecting individual privacy.
- The Shift Beyond Digital Services: the shift towards full digitization is driven by Davos elites and Big Tech partnerships rather than public demand, aiming for algorithmic oversight. This approach replaces traditional banking with data-driven policies aimed at economic surveillance and control over financial transactions.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde reaffirmed her support for the digital euro, framing it as a project not driven by banking interests, but by the public good—ensuring financial stability, preserving monetary sovereignty, and safeguarding access to central bank money in an increasingly cashless society.
The euphemisms in the narrative
On the surface, this narrative holds appeal. The ECB has acknowledged concerns from commercial banks about disintermediation—specifically, that citizens might shift deposits from private institutions to a risk-free, central bank-backed digital currency.
In response, design safeguards have been proposed: holding limits (capped at €3,000) and zero remuneration on balances. These, Lagarde insists, will ensure the digital euro complements cash, not replaces bank deposits or undermines the financial system.
But beneath the polished rhetoric lies a growing contradiction—one that cannot be ignored.
Lagarde and her technocratic peers at Davos speak of “public interest” and “financial inclusion” while simultaneously overseeing a digital transformation that erodes privacy, mandates technological compliance, and expands state and corporate surveillance under the guise of efficiency.
Digitization is imposing itself
The idea that the digital euro is primarily about citizen empowerment rings hollow when so many essential state services—from healthcare and taxation to social benefits and identification—are being systematically migrated to digital platforms that exclude those without access or digital literacy.
Let us be clear: this is not neutral progress. The push toward full digitization is not being driven by public demand. No referendum has been held.
No democratic mandate sought. Instead, we see irreversible policy shifts imposed through centralized institutions—guided by Davos elites, central bankers, and Big Tech partnerships—all operating under the banner of “innovation” while amassing unprecedented control over personal data.
Consider the facts: biometric databases are expanding. Digital IDs are being rolled out across the EU under the guise of convenience.
Citizens are increasingly required to authenticate their lives through apps and online portals—platforms that collect, store, and often share behavioral and biological data with opaque third parties.
And what happens to those who resist? They are dismissed. Marginalized. Labeled “conspiracy theorists” or “technophobic”—a deliberate strategy to silence legitimate dissent. Yet, skepticism is not paranoia.
It is rational to question systems that centralize power, eliminate anonymity, and make financial and civic participation contingent on digital compliance.
"Privacy-preserving" design
Lagarde’s assurances about “privacy-preserving design” do not align with the broader trajectory of digital governance. How can we trust promises of privacy when every other facet of digital integration—from banking to policing—relies on mass data harvesting?
The digital euro may not replace bank deposits tomorrow, but its long-term function is symbolic of a larger shift: the displacement of physical autonomy with algorithmic oversight. It is not merely a payment tool. It is infrastructure for a surveilled economy—one where every transaction, every movement of money, can be monitored, restricted, or conditioned.
If the goal were truly public interest, we would see equal investment in preserving choice—including the right to use cash, to opt out of digital systems, and to exist outside the data economy. But that is not the world being built.
Until then, the Davos vision of a “digital public good” will remain indistinguishable from a tool of control—elegantly marketed, institutionally enforced, and overwhelmingly accepted without scrutiny. That is not progress. That is power in disguise.
The Digital Euro: Public Good or Tool of Control?
