What 100 million “unbanked” Nigerians can teach Canadians about Central Bank Digital Currency

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Despite credit cards, e-transfers and online banking having already made money go pretty much digital, the Bank of Canada is busily working on a much bigger transformation. Canada is one of about 100 countries that – in uncanny synchronicity – several years ago joined the race toward retail central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Touted as the digital equivalent of cash, CBDC risks eroding the established banking system and, among many other problems, is likely to be vulnerable to hackers’ attacks which, should a foreign government use this as a tactic in “hybrid” warfare, might prove capable of destabilizing a target country’s economy.

Considering such acute risks, it would be reasonable to expect that the explosion of worldwide interest in CBDC is justified by its special qualities that address obvious pressing needs of the citizenry. The purported consumer and other needs for CBDC, however, seem to be entirely fabricated, while the qualities that actually differentiate CBDC from the money we use now are hushed and obscured by virtue-signalling.

CBDC’s main advertised feature is equivalency to cash. It is everywhere marketed as a means to advance “financial inclusion” – a convenient way for the “unbanked” to access financial services – both a stand-in and replacement for cash, which it is claimed is about to disappear from use.

The Bank of Canada admits, however, that CBDC cannot actually replace cash or make an “unbanked” person “banked”. That’s because CBDC does nothing to address the two key reasons people still use cash: the need for privacy and independence from technology. CBDC does the opposite. First, CBDC has a built-in lack of privacy as it’s designed to always leave a digital trail. Second, it requires the use of an internet-connected device – meaning it is not only technology-dependent but interruptible.

While some research suggests only 2 percent of Canadians still rely heavily on cash, a Bank of Canada survey found that 46 percent of us would find the elimination of cash anywhere from inconvenient to disastrous. What might happen if governments forcibly removed cash from circulation? We don’t need to guess, for we have a large-scale case-study available.

In Nigeria, about half of adults had no bank account when in October 2021 the government introduced eNaira, the world’s first serious CBDC implementation. Making 100 million “unbanked” Nigerians happy was no doubt intended not only as a national but as a global endorsement for CBDC. Yet it did the opposite, eventually rocking the country to its core.

A piddly 0.8 percent of already “banked” Nigerians downloaded eNaira wallets in the first year after the launch, of whom most did not engage in any transactions. Not dissuaded by such overwhelming indifference, the government doubled-down with an all-out attack on cash, demonetizing banknotes and forcing Nigerians to exchange their cash holdings for eNaira. The nation’s 100 million poorest people were left with paper money they could not use to buy food or other necessities. This triggered violent riots as desperate hungry people took to the streets, demanding reinstatement of cash. The situation persisted for more than three months until cash was re-enabled. Today Nigeria’s government is trying to boost eNaira use through artificial cash shortages.

The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) consultants heavily pushed the “financial inclusion” narrative in Nigeria, fully endorsing it as “a key policy objective that central banks, especially those in emerging and low-income countries, are considering for retail [CBDC].” Yet bizarrely, the same IMF document notes: “The impact of CBDC for improving financial inclusion is currently speculative, where further evidence and experience are needed to fully understand benefits and limitations.”

How can the main reason for a large financial overhaul that will be life-altering for hundreds of millions of people and carries many risks be…speculative? As if dodging this question, the Bank of Canada turns the conversation on its head: instead of looking for a justifiable use case that warrants “wide adoption, acceptance and use of CBDC”, it goes into talk of “overcoming the barriers”. The Bank seems to have made its commitment to building CBDC capacity before finding a genuine need. And that leaves us with the only sensible conclusion: that the advertised justifications are just an awkward façade, hiding the real and not-so-welcome reasons.

The two major features making CBDC different from traditional money are that CBDC is centrally traceable and programmable. This makes CBDC almost infinitely dangerous. It will be only one step from monitoring your every financial move to telling you how and when to spend your money. CBDC will enable “special purposes” like spending caps or blocks, transfer limits, consumption controls, penalty taxes, forced loans, nudge economics, geo fencing and more. These things are already happening in China and, according to Russian officials, may soon begin there as well.

Those utterly undemocratic purposes should outrage any Westerner, but they fit China’s social credit system like a glove. They could be further enhanced by other privacy-intrusive measures like digital ID, surveillance and elimination of cash or alternative monetary systems such as cryptocurrency.

Canadians have expressed no desire, understanding or even, for the most part, awareness of the publicly-funded CBDC development and the reasons behind it. As in Nigeria, the nation’s central bank does not listen but simply insists on and proceeds with this affair, claiming it’s to benefit Canadians but failing or not even trying to articulate how.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gleb Lisikh is a researcher and IT management professional, and a father of three children. He lives in Vaughan, Ontario and grew up in various parts of the Soviet Union.

Related Topics:#BankOfCanada #CBDC #CentralBankDigitalCurrency #FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #GiebLisikh

Up Next

Trudeau’s labor minister pushes ‘equity’ mandate to favor LGBT job applicants

Don't Miss

Reckless: British Columbia’s “safe supply” fentanyl tablet experiment

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

New children’s book demonstrates how the everyday world is connected to natural resources

conflict / 7 hours ago

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

Banks

The Great Exodus from the Net Zero Banking Alliance has arrived

Published on February 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Gina Pappano

Next, we need a Great Exodus from net zero ideology

In 2021, all of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO, Scotiabank and RBC – signed onto the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).

U.N.-sponsored and Mark Carney-led, GFANZ is a sector-wide umbrella coalition whose goal is to accelerate global decarbonization and the emergence of a worldwide net zero global economy.

But now, in the first month of 2025, four of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO and Scotiabank – have announced their decision to exit the NZBA.

This came on the heels of similar announcements by six of the biggest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo as well as the investment firm BlackRock leaving the Asset Management subgroup of the GFANZ.

That group, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, has now suspended operations altogether, and the GFANZ and all of its subgroups are falling like a house of cards.

At InvestNow, the not-for-profit that I lead, we’re considering these developments a victory and a vindication of our work.

In November of 2024, we submitted shareholder proposals to Canada’s Big Five banks asking them to leave both the NZBA and the GFANZ. As of this writing, all but one of them have done just that.

But this is only a partial victory.

When they signed on to the NZBA, the banks pledged to align their lending, investment and banking activities with decarbonization goals, including achieving net zero emissions by 2050. They pledged to focus on higher emitting sectors first and foremost. In practice, this means they would be setting their sights on Canada’s natural resource sector.

That’s because the net zero ideology motivating these groups requires the drastic reduction of oil and gas production and use over a comparatively short period of time.

That is a serious threat to Canada since we’ve been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Hydrocarbon energy has become the backbone of our economy, and the war being waged against it has already made our lives harder and more expensive. Left unchecked, these difficulties will compound, with ruinous results.

In joining the NZBA, the Big Five Banks agreed to divest from oil and gas, eliminating projects and companies from the investment pool simply because of the sector they work in, as part of a long-term goal of totally decarbonizing the economy.

Presumably, having left the Alliance, those banks could now change course, increasing investment in and lending to oil and gas firms with an eye toward increasing the return on investment for their shareholders.

Except the banks have stressed that they have no intention of doing so. In the press releases and articles about leaving the NZBA, each bank emphasized that this move should not be interpreted as them abandoning net zero itself. All of these banks remain committed to aligning their activities with decarbonization, no matter the cost to Canada, the Canadian economy or the good of its citizens.

This means we still have work to do. While we applaud the banks for exiting the NZBA, we will continue to work to get them to leave behind the net zero ideology as well. Then, and only then, will we claim a full victory.

Gina Pappano is the former head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange and executive director of InvestNow , a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org.

Banks

Four of Canada’s top banks ditch UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate alliance

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Among the banks that have withdrawn from the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance are TD Bank, the Bank of Montreal and CIBC.

In a stunning reversal, four of Canada’s top banks have withdrawn themselves from a United Nations “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”

Last Friday, Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) said they were all withdrawing from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which calls for banks to come in line with the push for “Net Zero” emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which was founded and backed by the United Nations.

Interestingly, the GFANZ was formed in 2021, while Liberal Party leadership candidate Mark Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week.

The sudden decision from Canadian banks to ditch the alliance comes despite Trudeau’s government still being committed to so-called “net zero” policies and only a few days before pro-oil and gas U.S. President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

According to a statement from BMO, it is no longer a “member of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA),” but it is still “committed” to the idea of an eventual “net zero” world.

“We are fully committed to our climate strategy and supporting our clients as their lead partner in the transition to a net-zero world. We have robust internal capabilities to implement relevant international standards, supporting our climate strategy and meeting our regulatory requirements,” it said.

In a statement regarding its exit from the NZBA, TD Bank said that it has the “resources, relationships and capabilities to continue to advance our strategy, deliver for our shareholders and advise our clients as they adapt their businesses and seize new opportunities.”

Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.

Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called “Net Zero” energy by as early as 2035 nationwide.