From Cash to Commands: The Future of Money

_{^{IN PARTNERSHIP WITH}}

Money is shedding its physical form and acquiring a new vocabulary. The latest generation of digital currencies, including central bank digital currencies and stablecoins, brings with it a capability that fundamentally alters the relationship between money and autonomy: programmability.​

This is not mere digitization. We have lived with electronic banking for decades. Rather, this shift introduces the ability to embed rules, conditions, and expiration dates directly into currency itself. Money becomes software, responsive to commands written into its code.

Recent developments underscore how quickly this transition is accelerating. In mid-October, Japan's three largest banks—Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, and Mizuho Financial Group—announced plans to jointly issue a yen-pegged stablecoin by year's end. The stablecoin will initially focus on yen denominations, with a dollar-pegged version potentially following.​

In China, regulators recently intervened to pause several private stablecoin projects, underscoring that monetary innovation remains a state domain.

China's own digital yuan, the e-CNY, has processed over 7 trillion yuan (approximately $986 billion) in cumulative transactions as of mid-2024, with operations spanning more than 29 cities. Despite wide trials, Chinese users still prefer WeChat Pay and Alipay—showing that even state-backed digital currencies face adoption hurdles.

Programmability introduces capabilities that extend far beyond facilitating transactions. As defined by the European Data Protection Supervisor, programmable money consists of digital currency with "built-in rules, imposing restrictions on the usage of that money". A government could impose an expiry date to incentivize spending, restrict usage to specific goods or services, or apply negative interest rates to discourage hoarding. Programmable payments, by contrast, enable automated transfers when predetermined conditions are met—a subtler but still significant shift.​

Academic research highlights the potential benefits and risks. A University of Pennsylvania study explores how programmable money could serve welfare state functions, providing targeted social security or pandemic relief. Yet it also warns that such features may interfere with payment autonomy, particularly when embedded in legal tender.

The distinction between programmable payments and programmable money is not merely technical—it is political. Programmable payments automate routine tasks: bill payments, payroll, conditional transfers. Programmable money, however, embeds policy decisions into the currency itself, shifting control from the holder to the issuer. This is where concerns about autonomy intensify.​

For consumers, the implications are profound yet often obscured by technical language. Programmable digital currencies alter the fundamental nature of ownership. Cash, for all its limitations, offers finality. Once transferred, it is beyond the reach of the issuer. Programmable money, however, remains tethered to its source, subject to conditions that can be enforced remotely and in real time.​

Beyond surveillance lies the potential for conditionality. Programmable money could restrict spending to approved categories, impose expiration dates on benefits, or enforce compliance with policy objectives through monetary flow limitations. Well-intentioned safeguards—ensuring welfare funds are spent appropriately, for instance—quickly shade into paternalism. The question is not whether such tools could be used, but whether they should be, and who decides.​

The IMF notes that while many privacy concerns already exist in digital payment systems, CBDCs could present new challenges, potentially perceived as instruments for state surveillance. Even in democracies, the architecture of digital currency systems—default privacy settings, tiered access, transaction tracking—can embed significant governmental control if designed without democratic oversight.​

The trajectory is clear: money is becoming programmable, whether through central bank digital currencies, private stablecoins, or hybrid arrangements. The question is not whether this shift will occur, but how it will be governed.

Will programmability serve efficiency and inclusion, or will it become a mechanism of control? The answer depends on transparency, institutional safeguards, and public engagement in design choices that are too often treated as purely technical matters.​

Innovation need not come at the cost of independence. As digital currencies proliferate, the challenge is ensuring that the future of money remains compatible with freedom. This requires vigilance, informed debate, and a willingness to ask hard questions about who controls the commands embedded in our currency.

The architecture of money shapes the architecture of power; getting that design right matters more than we might imagine.

Deniss Slinkins,
Global Financial Journal