The Dream and Dilemma of Multi-National Digital Currencies: Promise or Pipe Dream?
This article is a contribution from our content partner, Deaglo What Is an MNDC? A multi-national digital currency (MNDC)—a shared digital medium of exchange issued and accepted by multiple countries—carries both significant potential and complex challenges. The Case For MNDCs: Efficiency, Inclusion, and De-Dollarization The main benefit of an MNDC is reduced transaction costs and frictions. Remittance costs fall, and cross-border payments become more efficient and cheaper by bypassing intermediaries and multiple currency exchanges. Also, real-time settlements are a huge benefit. Instant or near-instant clearing and settlement of payments improves cash flow and reduces counterparty risk. It’s perhaps a dream that will never materialize, but a shared digital currency could promote economic cooperation and integration within regions (e.g., LATAM/MERCOSUR, ASEAN). It would definitely boost trade by reducing the uncertainty of currency fluctuations. Hidden Gains: Real-Time Settlement and Monetary Credibility A less obvious but similarly important advantage is that smaller or less stable economies can benefit from anchoring their monetary system to a larger, stable multi-national framework. It can also enhance credibility and reduce inflation in jurisdictions with weak monetary institutions. For the smallest or poorest jurisdictions, MNDCs can help integrate unbanked populations into the financial system through digital wallets. Perhaps the most discussed advantage recently is the desirability of de-dollarization -an MNDC would reduce dependence on the USD and its clearing mechanisms, redistributing global monetary power and reducing dollar dominance. Economic Sovereignty at Stake: The Major MNDC Tradeoff The biggest downside of an MNDC is the loss of national monetary policy autonomy. Member countries would lose control over interest rates, inflation management, and currency adjustments—especially problematic during economic shocks or asymmetric crises. Central banks may not be able to respond effectively to domestic conditions without being able to control interest rates or issuance volume. Central banks would be relegated to operating under a regional monetary council or policy board, similar to the ECB. Central banks would still likely manage liquidity provisioning to and regulation of domestic financial institutions. Balancing privacy rights with AML/KYC obligations would still be left with central banks working with regulators. Policy Gridlock and Regulatory Discord Differing regulatory regimes, privacy standards, AML/KYC requirements, and tax rules could hinder implementation. Looking at how long it took the ECB to become a functioning unit, and how fractious the EU/ECB is today, reaching consensus on governance, issuance rights, and monetary rules among sovereign states is nigh on impossible. Disagreements could even lead to political instability. Digital Risks and Systemic Threats Lastly, there are significant cybersecurity and operational risks. A digital currency introduces new risks of hacking, fraud, or technical failure, with large-scale economic consequences. The infrastructure must be secure, resilient, and interoperable across borders. A Realistic Alternative: The Rise of CBDCs Currently, there are timid forays into national digital currencies. These are so-called stable coins, backed by fiat currency. You could call these National CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency). Issuance and management would be by individual central banks. This would give them full autonomy over monetary supply, interest rate setting, and currency circulation. This control would allow tailoring to local economic goals and policy tools. Citizens already familiar with their own central bank are more likely to trust and adopt a national digital currency. Cross-Border Problem Still Unsolved However, they still don’t solve the cross-border problem. MNDCs provide seamless cross-border transactions within member countries. There is no FX risk or cost, which is a huge effect (and would eliminate a great deal of banks’ profits with the disappearance of derivatives!). With a CBDC, cross-border ecosystems are fractured; each CBDC must interoperate via bridges or hubs of some sort (TBD). To many countries’ delights, MNDCs reduce reliance on external currencies like USD or EUR. They could empower regional blocs (e.g., Mercosur, CELAC) to assert economic sovereignty. The BRICs Digital Currency Fantasy: Political Fractures and Monetary Chaos There has been a lot of talk (but no substantial action other than some fraudulent videos released by Russia) about a BRICs currency. This is pure fantasy. BRICs are not a politically homogeneous bloc. They span democratic and authoritarian regimes, with varying levels of openness, transparency, and geopolitical alignment. More importantly, these economies maintain radically different currency regimes that would be impossible to reconcile: There’s already competition among them for control- China, India, and Russia may each want to lead or host the MNDC infrastructure or reserve system. Also, each country has its own national digital currency ambitions (e.g., e-CNY, Digital Rupee, Digital Ruble), which is counter to an MNDC. Establishing a common policy rate or jointly managing digital monetary supply is nearly impossible without deep monetary convergence and political alignment. Additionally, volatile inflation and interest rates in countries like Brazil and South Africa make it doubly hard. The group would need to create a new supranational monetary governance framework. This would face strong resistance, especially from China, Russia and India, who may not want to dilute sovereignty or accept external control. Conclusion: MNDCs Are a Vision of the Future—Just Not the Near One MNDCs of any sort are going to be difficult to implement, solving some problems but causing new ones. An MNDC across the BRICs (or even MERCOSUR) is complete fantasy, given the vast disparities of ambitions, control and other factors. Not to mention, one of the BRICs – Russia – is under heavy sanctions. It’s doubtful that India or China would commit to a currency association under these conditions when they wish to remain integrated into the worlds main financial systems. CBDCs solve some of the problems, and within each country would vastly ease transactions, clearing, and avoid the pitfalls of MNDCs lack of autonomy and control. But they do not solve the problems associated with trans-border transactions. Join our Treasury Community Treasury Mastermind is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information. Notice: JavaScript is required…
Franklin
AI in KYC: The five key questions senior leaders should be asking
This article is a contribution from one of our content partners, Avollone I hardly need to point out the ways in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) has exploded into our lives – both personal and professional – over the past few years. I recently read an EY report that said that 90% of European financial services firms have integrated AI to some extent and 69% expect Generative AI (GenAI) to significantly impact productivity. To take an example from our own industry, GenAI is often put forward as a way to streamline the more labor-intensive and time-consuming tasks in KYC operations. The way I see things, there’s no denying that AI holds gamechanging potential. However, I think it would be foolhardy for executives not to acknowledge its risks, many of which are very complex. One of the reasons for this is that modern AI and machine learning models tend to work within a ‘black box’, with data points working together in ways that are impossible for a human to understand. So executive teams are often left scratching their heads, feeling sure that AI could offer value in their KYC processes but equally not wanting to expose their organisation to unknown risks. To shed some light on the matter, I’ve come up with five key points for leaders considering AI in KYC to discuss with their teams 1. How can AI enhance our KYC processes? Rather than getting sidetracked by shiny new technologies, we advise our customers to think about the problem they’re trying to solve, and how (or if) AI can help. There are a myriad of ways in which AI can be effectively deployed to boost efficiencies within the KYC space. For example, AI can extract tasks and related due dates from an incoming email, generating and assigning sub-tasks for individuals to act upon. It can prompt the collection of data from counterparties – or even source the correct information from public sources. At Avallone, our mantra is that AI should act as a user’s “wingperson”. It should augment, rather than replace, the work of the human. By taking each KYC task case by case, we work with our customers to determine where it makes most sense for AI to streamline their processes. 2. Where can we find experts in AI for KYC? A significant portion of firms say that they have limited GenAI expertise within their workforce, and we know that Machine Learning and AI are typically areas with the widest talent gaps. While it’s important for leadership to take a long-term approach to building key skills within their teams, executives often view this issue the wrong way around. In fact, you don’t need AI experts to determine how best to improve your KYC processes. AI is a tool like any other, and what’s most important is to place that tool in the hands of someone who fully understands the problem you’re trying to solve. You need KYC experts who understand all the complexities within this space, and who also have an overview on where automation could be implemented for the greatest gain and least risk. 3. What are the potential pitfalls in using AI for KYC? Treasury and compliance leaders are right to proceed with caution when using AI. As AI becomes more commonplace within the industry, it’s naturally falling under increased scrutiny by regulators. For example, the European Commission’s recent AI Act promotes principles of safety, ethics, transparency and accountability – requiring transparent model decisioning, explainability and tracking of data privacy. Regulators are penalizing organizations who fail to adopt the correct approach – as they should. Unfortunately, an increasing number of organizations are falling foul to these regulatory requirements. Recently, a Danish bank used AI to close thousands of alerts, however they were unable to explain the AI-driven decision-making process and were forced to re-process them manually. In Germany, a bank was fined €300,000 for not being able to justify why AI rejected a customer’s credit card application. Failure to ensure transparent decision-making can cost an organization in time, money and reputation – often negating the original benefits of AI. Given the significant risks that AI introduces, senior leaders must be sure that there are adequate controls in place to protect both their business and customers – often this involves balancing automation with human oversight. As well as ensuring explainability of all decisions, organizations must also stay updated with the ever-evolving technological and regulatory developments. Executives need to ensure that they have adequate resources to manage this extra workload either within their own teams, or through collaborating with a trusted partner. 4. How – and why – should we balance automation with human oversight? It’s widely acknowledged that AI can perform many tasks faster, more efficiently and more cost-effectively than humans. However, particularly in KYC, human verification is a crucial step. Let’s take a practical example: collecting key financial information from investors to send to your bank. Automating parts of this process can save teams significant time and resources – AI can scan a questionnaire, and source and add missing data points. However, automatically sending this data onto your bank is a step too far. With no human oversight, your organization is left open to data breaches, errors, fines, and untold reputational damage. Not to mention the issues surrounding accountability – who is actually responsible if AI makes your investors’ sensitive information public? None of these consequences are worth the risk. Simply by building in a layer of human approval before sending the package to your bank, you mitigate against these harmful scenarios. 5. How can we integrate AI with our existing and future workflows? At Avallone, we focus on collaborating with our users to understand where it makes most sense to automate. We recommend starting with the obvious, repeatable tasks and building from there. By automating in small and digestible ways, Treasury teams are able to retain full control and accountability while also enjoying AI’s full benefits. And while each AI use case may seem minor, the ultimate impact on…