CBDC Survey 2024: BIS Reveals 91% of Central Banks Advancing Digital Currency

CBDC Survey 2024 Overview: Scope, Methodology, and Global Coverage

The Bank for International Settlements has published BIS Papers No 159, titled “Advancing in Tandem,” presenting the results of its comprehensive 2024 survey on central bank digital currencies, stablecoins, and asset tokenisation. This annual survey, conducted in late 2024, drew responses from 93 central banks spanning 28 advanced economies (AEs) and 65 emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs). Together, these jurisdictions represent approximately 78% of the world’s population and 94% of global GDP, making this the most representative snapshot of global CBDC development ever compiled.

The survey covers three interconnected domains: the status and design of retail and wholesale CBDCs, the regulatory treatment of stablecoins and cryptoassets, and the rapidly expanding field of asset tokenisation. Understanding this landscape is critical for financial institutions, policymakers, and technology providers navigating the future of money. For a related analysis of how digital money is reshaping financial systems, explore our interactive guide on the BIS Annual Economic Report 2025 on Digital Money.

The methodology relies on self-reported data from central banks, with questions structured across multiple categories including motivations, design choices, legal authority, and use cases. While self-reporting introduces some limitations, the breadth of the sample and the consistency of BIS survey design over multiple years ensures high-quality longitudinal data that policymakers and researchers can trust.

Central Bank CBDC Engagement: 91% Actively Building Digital Currency

The headline finding is striking: 85 of 93 responding central banks — a full 91% — are engaged in some form of CBDC work. This represents a continued upward trend from previous years, signalling that central bank digital currency has moved from theoretical exploration to active development across the globe. The nature of engagement varies significantly between advanced and emerging economies, however.

Among advanced economies, 89% of CBDC-engaged central banks are working on both retail and wholesale variants simultaneously. This dual-track approach reflects the recognition that retail CBDCs (for the general public) and wholesale CBDCs (for financial institutions) serve complementary policy objectives. In contrast, EMDEs tend to concentrate resources more narrowly, with 36% focused exclusively on retail CBDC and 17% on wholesale CBDC alone.

The progress metrics reveal that wholesale CBDC work is generally more advanced than retail. In AEs, 38% are running wholesale CBDC pilots and 17% are developing live wholesale systems. For retail CBDCs in AEs, only 15% have reached the pilot stage with none yet live. Three EMDE jurisdictions — The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Nigeria — have already launched live retail CBDCs, positioning them as global pioneers in this space. EMDEs also show substantial activity, with 35% conducting wholesale experiments and 27% running retail experiments.

The primary motivation driving CBDC work across both categories is preserving the role of central bank money, rated as very important or important by approximately 80% of respondents for retail and 75% for wholesale. As cash usage declines and private digital payment solutions grow, central banks see CBDCs as essential to maintaining monetary sovereignty and the singleness of money. Other top motivations include improving domestic payments efficiency, enhancing payment safety, and for wholesale CBDCs specifically, boosting cross-border payments efficiency.

Retail CBDC Design: Distribution, Access, and Financial Inclusion

The design choices for retail CBDCs reveal a consensus on some principles and sharp divergences on others. Distribution through commercial banks is the dominant model, favoured by 67% of AEs and 65% of EMDEs. Non-bank payment service providers (PSPs) are also widely envisioned as distribution channels, with 56% of AEs and 54% of EMDEs including them. This two-tier distribution model — central bank as issuer, private sector as distributor — mirrors the existing monetary architecture and aims to avoid disintermediating the banking system.

Financial inclusion is a central design consideration, particularly for EMDEs. Approximately 40% of central banks plan to make retail CBDCs usable without requiring a bank account, removing a significant barrier for underserved populations. However, approaches to access and acceptance vary: 58% of EMDEs are considering mandatory merchant acceptance versus only 33% of AEs. This divergence reflects the more acute financial inclusion challenges in developing economies, where CBDC adoption may need regulatory support to gain traction.

The question of fees and pricing reveals interesting policy tensions. In AEs, 50% plan to offer basic CBDC services for free to end users, compared to only 29% of EMDEs. Some 19% of EMDEs are considering consumer fees for basic services, suggesting different cost-recovery models. Meanwhile, over 50% of central banks globally do not intend to pay interest on retail CBDC holdings, positioning it as a digital equivalent of cash rather than a savings instrument.

Access for non-residents is another area of divergence. While 44% of AEs plan to allow non-resident access, the figure drops to 33% for EMDEs, with restrictions on non-resident usage favoured by 39% of AEs and 21% of EMDEs. These design choices have significant implications for tourism, remittances, and cross-border economic activity, and they intersect with broader capital flow management considerations. Many central banks are exploring the CPMI guidelines on enhancing cross-border payments to ensure their CBDC designs support international objectives.

Wholesale CBDC Progress: DLT Platforms and Interbank Settlement

Wholesale CBDCs are emerging as the more advanced and immediately actionable form of digital central bank money. The survey reveals that 56% of both AEs and EMDEs are considering distributed ledger technology (DLT) as the underlying infrastructure for wholesale CBDC systems. Among those planning DLT-based platforms, 66% expect their systems to support multiple digital asset types, signalling a move toward unified tokenised asset settlement platforms.

The operational model heavily favours central bank control: 83% of respondents indicate the platform will be operated by the central bank. Joint operation with the private sector is considered by 28%, while fully private operation is envisioned by only 17%. This reflects central banks’ determination to retain oversight of systemically important payment infrastructure while leveraging private-sector innovation in application layers.

Envisioned use cases for wholesale CBDCs centre on three areas: interbank settlement (cited by 84% of respondents), delivery-versus-payment for securities transactions (77%), and payment-versus-payment for cross-border foreign exchange operations (70%). These use cases address well-documented inefficiencies in existing financial market infrastructure, where settlement times, counterparty risk, and operational complexity impose significant costs. The Financial Stability Board has identified wholesale CBDC as a potential accelerator for its cross-border payments roadmap.

Programmability is a key differentiator in wholesale CBDC design, with 69% of AEs considering programmable features versus 49% of EMDEs. Programmable wholesale money could enable automated settlement triggers, conditional payments, and smart contract integration, potentially transforming how securities, derivatives, and trade finance operate. The infrastructure being developed now will likely define the architecture of financial markets for decades to come.

CBDC Legal Frameworks: Authority, Regulation, and Readiness

Legal readiness is one of the most significant barriers to CBDC issuance, and the survey reveals stark differences between AEs and EMDEs. For retail CBDCs, only 4% of AEs currently possess the legal authority to issue, compared to 42% of EMDEs. Many AEs are actively undergoing legislative changes or remain uncertain about their legal position, reflecting the complexity of adapting established legal frameworks to accommodate a new form of central bank money.

The legal basis for wholesale CBDCs is generally more established than for retail variants. This is partly because wholesale CBDC operations can often be conducted under existing central bank mandates for payment system oversight and settlement services, without requiring new consumer-facing legislation. Nevertheless, the rapid evolution of tokenised assets and DLT-based platforms is pushing many jurisdictions to update their regulatory frameworks.

The regulatory landscape for cryptoassets and stablecoins is evolving rapidly in parallel with CBDC development. By end-2024, 45% of surveyed jurisdictions had enacted specific regulation for stablecoins and crypto assets, up from 35% in 2023. Another 22% were in the process of developing or proposing frameworks, meaning more than two-thirds of surveyed jurisdictions either have or are actively building crypto regulatory regimes. Most jurisdictions prefer bespoke regulatory approaches tailored to the unique characteristics of crypto assets rather than simply extending existing financial regulation.

Stablecoin Impact on CBDC Development and Regulatory Responses

The relationship between stablecoins and CBDCs is increasingly symbiotic rather than purely competitive. The BIS survey found that stablecoins have directly accelerated CBDC work: 35% of central banks working on retail CBDCs and 43% of those developing wholesale CBDCs reported that stablecoin and crypto developments pushed them to move faster. This catalytic effect underscores how private-sector innovation is shaping public policy timelines.

Despite the acceleration, actual use of stablecoins for payments outside the crypto ecosystem remains limited in most jurisdictions. The survey finds that most central banks report trivial or niche stablecoin usage for real-world payments. However, a small but notable number of EMDEs report broader use of stablecoins for remittances and cross-border payments, particularly in corridors where traditional banking infrastructure is expensive or inaccessible. This pattern suggests stablecoins may be filling a gap that CBDCs are being designed to address.

The regulatory response has been swift. The jump from 35% to 45% of jurisdictions with enacted stablecoin regulation in just one year represents a significant acceleration of policymaking. International coordination is also intensifying, with frameworks from the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Financial Stability Board, and the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures providing templates for national regulators. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation has emerged as a particularly influential model, and many jurisdictions are benchmarking their approaches against it.

For financial institutions and fintech companies, the parallel development of CBDCs and stablecoin regulation creates both opportunity and complexity. Understanding how these two tracks interact — and how different jurisdictions are balancing innovation with stability — is essential for strategic planning. Our interactive analysis of the Carnegie Global Governance Regime Complex offers parallel insights into how international governance frameworks evolve across technology domains.

Asset Tokenisation Trends: Bonds, Securities, and Digital Assets

Asset tokenisation — the process of representing real-world financial assets as digital tokens on distributed ledgers — is advancing rapidly alongside CBDC development. The survey found that 48% of jurisdictions reported public or private sector engagement in tokenisation of financial and real assets beyond CBDCs and stablecoins. The engagement is heavily skewed toward advanced economies, where 86% of respondents are involved, compared to 32% in EMDEs.

Bonds are the clear frontrunner in asset tokenisation. Among surveyed jurisdictions, 38% are exploring tokenised bonds and 31% have live issuances — making bonds the most commonly tokenised asset class globally. Investment fund shares, real estate, and equities follow as the next most active categories. The appeal of tokenised bonds lies in their potential to reduce settlement times from T+2 to near-instant, lower issuance costs, expand investor access, and improve secondary market liquidity.

A critical finding is the emerging role of wholesale CBDCs as settlement assets for tokenised securities. Settlement for live tokenised assets is predominantly conducted in tokenised central bank money (wholesale CBDC), followed by traditional bank deposits, tokenised deposits, and traditional central bank money. Stablecoins are used as a settlement asset in only one responding jurisdiction. This signals that central banks see wholesale CBDC as the foundational settlement layer for the emerging tokenised economy — a finding with profound implications for financial market infrastructure.

Approximately half of the AE jurisdictions engaged in tokenisation have already reached the live implementation stage, with 12 AEs reporting live cases. This rapid progression from concept to production suggests that tokenisation may reach meaningful scale faster than many anticipated, particularly in sovereign bond markets, commercial paper, and investment funds.

Cross-Border CBDC Interoperability and Payment Efficiency

Cross-border interoperability is emerging as a defining design challenge for CBDCs. The survey reveals that 56% of AEs and 79% of EMDEs are designing retail CBDCs with domestic payment system interoperability in mind. For cross-border interoperability with other CBDCs, 39% of AEs and 46% of EMDEs are actively planning, while wholesale CBDC interoperability is a priority for 44% of AEs and 65% of EMDEs.

The higher priority that EMDEs place on cross-border interoperability reflects their economies’ greater dependence on remittances and international trade flows. For many developing nations, the promise of CBDCs lies not only in domestic payment modernisation but in dramatically reducing the cost and time of cross-border transactions. Currently, sending remittances through traditional channels can cost 6-7% on average, with settlement times measured in days. CBDC-to-CBDC corridors could reduce both significantly.

Several multi-country CBDC experiments are already underway. Project mBridge, involving the central banks of China, the UAE, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia, has demonstrated wholesale CBDC cross-border transfers in near real-time. The BIS Innovation Hub’s Project Dunbar explored multi-CBDC platforms for international settlements. These experiments are informing the design standards and protocols that will eventually underpin a global CBDC interoperability framework.

The interoperability question intersects with geopolitical considerations. As different regions develop incompatible CBDC standards, the risk of fragmentation grows. The International Monetary Fund and BIS have emphasised the importance of early coordination on technical standards, messaging protocols, and regulatory harmonisation to prevent the emergence of digital currency blocs that could impede global trade and capital flows.

CBDC Design Choices: Offline Payments, Programmability, and Holding Limits

The granular design choices central banks are making today will shape how billions of people interact with digital money. Offline functionality — the ability to make CBDC payments without internet connectivity — is considered by 56% of AEs and 58% of EMDEs. This feature is essential for financial inclusion in regions with unreliable connectivity and for resilience during network outages or natural disasters.

Programmability is being explored across both retail and wholesale domains. For retail CBDCs, 44% of both AEs and EMDEs are considering programmable payment features, which could enable conditional transfers (such as targeted government subsidies that can only be spent on approved categories), automated bill payments, or time-locked savings. While programmability offers significant efficiency gains, it also raises profound questions about financial privacy and government control that policymakers must address transparently.

Holding limits are a widely adopted safeguard, with 56% of AEs and 63% of EMDEs considering caps on how much retail CBDC an individual can hold. Transaction limits are also under consideration, though more so in EMDEs (60%) than AEs (28%). These limits are designed to prevent large-scale bank disintermediation — if people could hold unlimited CBDC, they might move deposits out of commercial banks, potentially destabilising the banking system and constraining credit creation.

Capital flow management measures are built into CBDC designs by 17% of AEs and 29% of EMDEs, reflecting concerns about digital currency facilitating capital flight or enabling rapid, uncontrolled cross-border fund movements. The technology choices underlying these design decisions are equally significant: while 40% of EMDEs plan to use DLT for retail CBDC, only 6% of AEs do. Advanced economies tend to favour centralised database architectures for retail CBDC, viewing them as more scalable, performant, and easier to integrate with existing payment systems. Our interactive guide on Private Equity Outlook 2026 explores how these digital infrastructure shifts are reshaping investment landscapes.

Policy Implications and the Future of Central Bank Digital Currency

The 2024 BIS survey paints a picture of a global financial system in profound transition. With 91% of central banks now actively pursuing CBDCs, the question has shifted from “whether” to “how” digital sovereign money will be implemented. Several policy imperatives emerge from the data.

First, the preservation of monetary sovereignty requires proactive engagement. As private digital currencies — stablecoins, tokenised deposits, and crypto assets — gain traction, central banks that fail to develop their own digital money risk losing control over monetary policy transmission and the payments landscape. The survey’s finding that stablecoins have accelerated CBDC work in nearly half of responding central banks illustrates the urgency.

Second, legal and regulatory readiness must keep pace with technological development. The fact that only 4% of advanced economies currently have legal authority to issue retail CBDCs, while many are already in advanced pilot stages, represents a regulatory gap that could delay deployment or create legal uncertainty. Proactive legislative engagement is essential.

Third, the convergence of wholesale CBDCs and asset tokenisation is creating a new financial market infrastructure paradigm. Wholesale CBDCs as settlement assets for tokenised securities could fundamentally reshape how bonds, equities, and derivatives are traded and settled. Central banks, regulators, and market participants need to collaborate on standards and interoperability frameworks now, before incompatible systems become entrenched.

Fourth, cross-border coordination is non-negotiable. The diversity of CBDC designs across jurisdictions — different technology choices, access rules, holding limits, and interoperability standards — creates risks of fragmentation. International bodies like the BIS, IMF, and FSB must continue to play a coordinating role, and individual central banks should design their systems with global interoperability as a foundational requirement rather than an afterthought.

Finally, the survey underscores that CBDC development is not a zero-sum competition between advanced and emerging economies. EMDEs are leading in live retail CBDC deployments and bringing unique perspectives on financial inclusion, mobile-first design, and cross-border payment needs. AEs are driving wholesale CBDC and tokenisation infrastructure. The most effective path forward involves mutual learning, shared standards, and collaborative experimentation — advancing in tandem, as the report’s title suggests.