Connect with us

Banks

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

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Gieb Lisikh

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.

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

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development in Alaska’s North Slope—especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaska’s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washington’s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administration’s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The left’s “debanking” strategy—originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industries—is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projects—effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated they would no longer insure drilling in ANWR. In 2023, Chubb became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguided—they are dangerous. They hand America’s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I’ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Institute—an educational nonprofit I lead—that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

The reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartford’s Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.”

That’s a direct quote from their nonrenewal notice.

Let’s be clear: The Hartford didn’t drop us for anything we did—they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable “exposure” is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up to ESG orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What we’re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. It’s ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about “climate risk,” but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes like Venezuela or China, where environmental and human rights abuses are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forward—through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps by divesting from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know what’s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signaling—it’s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, America’s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight it—before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Banks

Bank of Canada Slashes Interest Rates as Trade War Wreaks Havoc

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

With businesses cutting jobs, inflation rising, and consumer confidence collapsing, the BoC scrambles to contain the damage

The Bank of Canada just cut interest rates again, this time by 25 basis points, bringing the rate down to 2.75%. On the surface, that might sound like good news—lower rates usually mean cheaper borrowing, easier access to credit, and in theory, more money flowing into the economy. But let’s be clear about what’s actually happening here. The Canadian economy isn’t growing because of strong fundamentals or responsible fiscal policy. The Bank of Canada is slashing rates because the Trudeau—sorry, Carney—government has utterly mismanaged this country’s economic future. And now, with the U.S. slapping tariffs on Canadian goods and our government responding with knee-jerk retaliatory tariffs, the central bank is in full-blown damage control.

Governor Tiff Macklem didn’t mince words at his press conference. “The Canadian economy ended 2024 in good shape,” he insisted, before immediately admitting that “pervasive uncertainty created by continuously changing U.S. tariff threats have shaken business and consumer confidence.” In other words, the economy was doing fine—until reality set in. And that reality is simple: a trade war with our largest trading partner is economic suicide, yet the Canadian government has charged headlong into one.

Macklem tried to explain the Bank’s thinking. He pointed out that while inflation has remained close to the BoC’s 2% target, it’s expected to rise to 2.5% in March thanks to the expiry of a temporary GST holiday. That’s right—Canadians are about to get slammed with higher prices on top of already sky-high costs for groceries, gas, and basic necessities. But that’s not even the worst part. Macklem admitted that while inflation will go up, consumer spending and business investment are both set to drop as a result of this economic uncertainty. Businesses are pulling back on hiring. They’re delaying investment. They’re scared. And rightly so.

A BoC survey released alongside the rate decision shows that 40% of businesses plan to cut back on hiring, particularly in manufacturing, mining, and oil and gas—precisely the industries that were already hammered by Ottawa’s obsession with green energy and ESG policies. As Macklem put it, “Canadians are more worried about their job security and financial health as a result of trade tensions, and they intend to spend more cautiously.” In other words, this is self-inflicted. The government could have pursued a different approach. It could have worked with the U.S. to de-escalate trade tensions. Instead, Mark Carney—an unelected, Davos-approved globalist—is running the show, doubling down on tariffs that will raise prices for Canadians while doing absolutely nothing to change U.S. policy.

The worst part is that the Bank of Canada is completely cornered. It can’t provide forward guidance on future rate decisions because, as Macklem admitted, it has no idea what’s going to happen next. “We are focused on assessing the upward pressure on inflation from tariffs and a weaker dollar, and the downward pressure from weaker domestic demand,” he said. That’s central banker-speak for: We’re guessing, and we hope we don’t screw this up. And if inflation does spiral out of control, the BoC could be forced to raise rates instead of cutting them.

At the heart of this mess is a government that has spent years inflating the size of the state while crushing private sector growth. Macklem admitted that consumer and business confidence has been “sharply affected” by recent developments. That’s putting it mildly. The Canadian dollar has dropped nearly 5% since January, making everything imported from the U.S. more expensive. Meanwhile, Ottawa has responded to U.S. tariffs with a tit-for-tat strategy, placing nearly $30 billion in retaliatory tariffs on American goods. The BoC is now forced to clean up the wreckage, but it’s like trying to put out a fire with a garden hose.

And what about unemployment? Macklem dodged giving a direct forecast, but he didn’t exactly sound optimistic. “We expect the first quarter to be weaker,” he said. “If household demand, if business investment remains restrained in the second quarter, and you’ll likely see weakness in exports, you could see an even weaker second quarter.” That’s code for job losses. It’s already happening. The hiring freezes, the canceled investments—those translate into real layoffs, real pay cuts, real suffering for Canadian families.

Meanwhile, inflation expectations are rising. And once those expectations set in, they become nearly impossible to undo. Macklem was careful in his wording, but the meaning was clear: “Some prices are going to go up. We can’t change that. What we particularly don’t want to see is that first round of price increases have knock-on effects, causing other prices to go up… becoming generalized and ongoing inflation.” Translation: We know this is going to hurt Canadians, we just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The same policymakers who told you that inflation was “transitory” in 2021 and then jacked up rates at record speed are now telling you that trade war-driven inflation will be “temporary.” But remember this: the BoC is only reacting to the mess created by politicians. The real blame lies with the people in charge. And now, that’s Mark Carney.

Macklem refused to comment on Carney’s role as prime minister, insisting that the BoC remains “independent” from politics. That’s cute. But the damage is already done. Ottawa picked a fight with the U.S. and now the BoC is left trying to prevent a full-scale economic downturn. The problem is, monetary policy can’t fix bad leadership. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X