2024 BIS CBDC Survey: 91% of Central Banks Now Exploring Digital Currencies as Tokenisation Reshapes Finance

Survey Overview: Global Central Bank Participation Reaches New Heights

The Bank for International Settlements’ 8th consecutive annual survey on central bank digital currencies reveals unprecedented global engagement in digital currency exploration. 93 central banks participated in the 2024 survey, collectively representing 78% of the world’s population and an astounding 94% of global economic output. This comprehensive participation underscores how CBDC development has evolved from experimental curiosity to mainstream central banking priority.

The survey composition reflects the global nature of CBDC interest, with 28 respondents from Advanced Economies (AEs) and 65 from Emerging Market and Developing Economies (EMDEs). This broad geographical representation provides crucial insights into how different economic contexts shape CBDC development approaches. The participation rate has remained consistently high, with 91% of surveyed central banks actively working on retail CBDC, wholesale CBDC, or both—a slight decrease from 94% in 2023 but representing an increase in absolute numbers from 81 to 85 central banks.

This sustained high engagement demonstrates that CBDC exploration has become a core central banking function rather than a peripheral experiment. Central banks worldwide recognize that the digitalization of money is not a question of “if” but “when,” prompting serious exploration of how digital currencies can serve their monetary policy, financial stability, and payment system objectives. For financial professionals tracking digital money trends, this level of institutional commitment signals profound changes ahead in the global monetary system.

Wholesale CBDC Development Outpaces Retail CBDC Projects

A striking revelation from the 2024 survey is how wholesale CBDC development has accelerated past retail CBDC initiatives globally. This represents a significant shift from early expectations that consumer-facing digital currencies would lead the way. Among advanced economies, 38% are running wholesale CBDC pilots compared to just 15% for retail CBDCs, while 17% are developing live wholesale CBDC systems—a remarkable advancement rate.

The reasons behind wholesale CBDC’s accelerated progress become clear when examining the underlying drivers. Unlike retail CBDCs, which must navigate complex consumer protection, privacy, and monetary transmission concerns, wholesale CBDCs address well-defined institutional needs with clearer regulatory boundaries. The growing tokenisation of traditional assets has created urgent demand for digital settlement infrastructure that only wholesale CBDCs can effectively provide.

This divergent development path also reflects different strategic priorities across economic regions. 89% of advanced economy central banks work on both retail and wholesale CBDCs simultaneously, leveraging their technological infrastructure and regulatory capacity to pursue parallel tracks. In contrast, EMDEs often concentrate resources on a single CBDC type: 36% focus exclusively on retail CBDC (prioritizing financial inclusion) while 17% concentrate solely on wholesale CBDC (emphasizing cross-border payment efficiency).

Preserving Central Bank Money: The Primary Driver Behind CBDC Development

The most compelling finding from the 2024 survey is the overwhelming consensus on CBDC motivation: approximately 80% of central banks working on both retail and wholesale CBDCs cite “preserving the role of central bank money” as an important or very important driver. This represents a fundamental shift from earlier surveys where efficiency improvements dominated central bank priorities.

This motivation stems from two concurrent trends reshaping the monetary landscape. First, the accelerating decline of physical cash usage across both advanced and emerging economies threatens to reduce central bank money’s presence in daily transactions. Second, the proliferation of private digital alternatives—from stablecoins to tokenised commercial bank deposits—creates potential challenges to monetary sovereignty and the traditional role of central banks as the ultimate monetary authority.

The implications extend beyond mere technological considerations. When central bank money disappears from the payment ecosystem, central banks lose direct insight into transaction flows, potentially compromising their ability to implement monetary policy effectively. CBDCs offer a solution by ensuring central bank money remains relevant in an increasingly digital financial system. As one central banker noted in the survey, CBDCs represent “a public anchor in an increasingly digitalised financial system”—a role that becomes more critical as private digital assets gain prominence.

This motivation particularly resonates with central banks observing the rapid growth of stablecoin usage and cryptocurrency adoption. While stablecoins currently serve primarily as crypto trading infrastructure, their potential evolution into broader payment instruments represents a strategic concern for monetary authorities worldwide.

Three Countries Lead with Live Retail CBDCs While Others Advance Through Pilots

Despite widespread exploration, only three central banks have successfully launched live retail CBDCs: The Bahamas with the Sand Dollar, Jamaica with JAM-DEX, and Nigeria with the eNaira. These pioneering implementations provide valuable real-world insights into CBDC operational challenges and user adoption patterns, though each has faced distinct implementation hurdles and varying degrees of public acceptance.

The majority of central banks remain in earlier development phases, with 48% running retail CBDC experiments and 19% conducting pilots. Interestingly, EMDEs show greater readiness for retail CBDC deployment, with 21% piloting retail CBDCs compared to just 15% of advanced economies. This divergence reflects different urgency levels: EMDEs often view retail CBDCs as solutions to financial inclusion challenges, while advanced economies face more complex integration requirements with existing sophisticated payment systems.

The use cases driving retail CBDC development reveal practical priorities: 81% target person-to-person payments, 79% focus on point-of-sale transactions, and 79% aim to facilitate government payments. These applications address fundamental payment system gaps, particularly in economies where traditional banking infrastructure remains limited or where government payment efficiency represents a significant economic development opportunity.

Among advanced economies, the European Central Bank’s digital euro project and various Asian initiatives represent the most advanced retail CBDC efforts, though regulatory and political considerations continue to influence development timelines. The European Union’s approach to CBDC regulation particularly highlights the complex balance between innovation and consumer protection that advanced economies must navigate.

Wholesale CBDC Use Cases: Interbank Settlement and Securities Transactions

Wholesale CBDC applications demonstrate clearer value propositions than retail implementations, with 84% of central banks targeting interbank payment settlement as a primary use case. This focus reflects wholesale CBDCs’ natural fit for improving existing institutional payment rails rather than creating entirely new consumer behaviors. The settlement of securities transactions represents another major application, with 77% exploring delivery versus payment (DvP) capabilities and 70% investigating payment versus payment (PvP) mechanisms.

The Bank for International Settlements’ Project Agorá exemplifies the sophisticated applications emerging for wholesale CBDCs. This multilateral initiative explores how tokenised money can integrate with tokenised securities to create more efficient, transparent, and automated settlement systems. Such applications address longstanding inefficiencies in cross-border payments and securities settlement, where current correspondent banking arrangements often involve multiple intermediaries, extended settlement times, and significant operational risks.

Wholesale CBDC designs increasingly emphasize programmability and interoperability. 69% of advanced economy and 49% of emerging market wholesale CBDC projects incorporate programmable payment features, enabling automated execution of complex financial transactions. This programmability becomes particularly valuable in securities markets where delivery versus payment transactions require precise coordination between asset and cash settlements.

The technology choices for wholesale CBDCs also differ markedly from retail implementations. 56% of advanced economies and 54% of emerging markets plan DLT-based wholesale CBDC platforms, recognizing distributed ledger technology’s advantages for institutional applications requiring transparency, immutability, and multi-party coordination. Among DLT-based platforms, 66% will support multiple digital assets, positioning wholesale CBDCs as infrastructure for broader tokenised asset ecosystems.

Design Choices Reveal Regional Divergence in CBDC Approaches

The 2024 survey exposes significant regional differences in CBDC design philosophy, particularly regarding technology choices and operational models. Most notably, 40% of emerging market retail CBDCs adopt distributed ledger technology compared to just 6% in advanced economies. This divergence reflects different infrastructure starting points and regulatory environments rather than technological preferences alone.

Distribution models show remarkable global consensus, with both advanced and emerging economies preferring two-tiered systems operating through commercial banks (67% AEs, 65% EMDEs) and non-bank payment service providers (56% AEs, 54% EMDEs). This preference preserves existing financial intermediation while adding CBDC capabilities, addressing central bank concerns about disintermediating commercial banks or assuming direct customer service responsibilities.

However, access and control features reveal different priorities. 58% of emerging market central banks plan to require merchant acceptance of retail CBDCs compared to just 33% in advanced economies. Similarly, transaction limits appear more frequently in emerging markets (60% vs. 28%), often reflecting capital flow management considerations rather than purely monetary policy concerns.

The interest-bearing question reveals another philosophical divide: the majority of central banks globally plan non-interest bearing CBDCs, but emerging markets show greater willingness to consider interest payments as a monetary policy tool. This difference reflects varying central bank priorities regarding monetary transmission mechanisms and financial inclusion objectives.

Programmability features show interesting patterns: while programmable payments enjoy similar adoption rates across regions (44% both), programmable money appears in 33% of emerging market projects versus just 11% in advanced economies. This suggests emerging markets view CBDCs as platforms for broader financial innovation, while advanced economies focus on payment efficiency within existing frameworks. These design choices have profound implications for how digital asset ecosystems will develop globally.

Legal Frameworks Lag as Many Central Banks Lack Clear CBDC Authority

One of the most significant barriers to CBDC implementation revealed by the survey is the widespread lack of clear legal authority. Only 4% of advanced economy central banks possess explicit legal authority to issue retail CBDCs, while 42% of emerging market central banks have secured such authority. This dramatic difference reflects varying legislative processes and regulatory approaches rather than technological readiness or central bank commitment.

Advanced economies face more complex legal considerations due to established regulatory frameworks, constitutional requirements, and political processes that must accommodate CBDC introduction. The European Union exemplifies this complexity, where digital euro legislation involves multiple national parliaments, European institutions, and coordination with existing payment system regulations. 29% of advanced economy jurisdictions are actively changing laws to enable retail CBDC issuance, suggesting recognition of the legal challenges involved.

The legal uncertainty extends beyond mere issuance authority to fundamental questions about CBDC legal tender status, privacy protections, and cross-border usage rights. Many central banks operate in legal frameworks designed for physical cash and traditional bank deposits, requiring substantial legislative updates to accommodate digital currency operations safely and effectively.

Wholesale CBDC legal frameworks face different but equally complex challenges. While wholesale CBDCs operate within existing institutional payment systems, their programmable and tokenised nature raises questions about securities regulation, settlement finality, and cross-border regulatory coordination. The European Central Bank’s approach to wholesale CBDC legal frameworks provides important precedents for other jurisdictions grappling with similar challenges.

Stablecoins Accelerate CBDC Work Despite Limited Payment Use

Perhaps the most paradoxical finding in the 2024 survey concerns stablecoin influence on CBDC development. While actual stablecoin usage for payments outside cryptocurrency ecosystems remains trivial in most jurisdictions, these private digital currencies have significantly accelerated central bank digital currency work. 43% of central banks accelerated wholesale CBDC development and 35% accelerated retail CBDC work due to stablecoin and cryptocurrency developments.

This acceleration reflects strategic rather than immediate competitive concerns. Central banks recognize stablecoins’ potential to evolve from crypto trading infrastructure into broader payment instruments, particularly for cross-border transactions where traditional correspondent banking involves high costs and extended settlement times. The survey reveals stablecoin usage for cross-border retail payments and remittances in select emerging markets, suggesting potential expansion beyond current limited applications.

Regulatory responses to stablecoins have intensified significantly, with 45% of jurisdictions enacting cryptoasset regulation (up from 35% in 2023) and over two-thirds now having or developing regulatory frameworks. This regulatory momentum demonstrates how private digital currency innovation forces public sector responses even when actual usage remains limited. Most jurisdictions prefer bespoke crypto regulation rather than adapting existing general financial rules, recognizing that digital assets require specialized regulatory approaches.

The limited use of stablecoins by traditional financial market infrastructures (FMIs) reinforces their current peripheral role in mainstream finance. However, central banks view this as temporary, expecting stablecoin capabilities to evolve rapidly as regulatory clarity emerges and technological infrastructure improves. This forward-looking concern drives CBDC development as a preemptive response to potential monetary sovereignty challenges from private digital currencies.

Global Cryptoasset Regulation Expands Rapidly

The regulatory landscape for digital assets has evolved dramatically, with 45% of surveyed jurisdictions having enacted comprehensive cryptoasset regulation—a significant increase from 35% in 2023. This rapid expansion reflects growing governmental recognition that digital assets require specialized regulatory frameworks rather than adaptation of traditional financial rules. Over two-thirds of jurisdictions now have enacted or are developing specific regulatory approaches for stablecoins and broader cryptoassets.

Leading regulatory frameworks include the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, various U.S. legislative proposals including the proposed GENIUS Act, and comprehensive approaches in Singapore and Hong Kong SAR. These frameworks generally focus on consumer protection, market integrity, and financial stability while attempting to preserve innovation incentives. The preference for bespoke regulation over adapting existing financial laws demonstrates how fundamentally different digital assets are from traditional financial instruments.

Stablecoin regulation receives particular attention due to their potential systemic importance and resemblance to traditional payment instruments. Most frameworks require stablecoin issuers to back their tokens with high-quality liquid assets, implement robust governance and risk management, and submit to regular auditing. However, significant differences remain across jurisdictions regarding acceptable backing assets, operational requirements, and cross-border usage permissions.

The rapid regulatory development also reflects central bank influence on broader digital asset policy. As CBDCs advance through development phases, central banks increasingly view comprehensive cryptoasset regulation as complementary rather than competitive. Well-regulated private digital assets can coexist with CBDCs within broader digital money ecosystems, provided appropriate safeguards protect monetary sovereignty and financial stability. This evolution toward regulatory clarity creates more predictable environments for both public and private digital currency innovation.

Asset Tokenisation Gains Momentum with Bonds Leading the Way

48% of surveyed jurisdictions have public or private sector engagement in asset tokenisation initiatives, with 86% of advanced economies participating compared to 32% of emerging markets. This stark difference reflects infrastructure capabilities, regulatory clarity, and market sophistication rather than interest levels. 17 jurisdictions have issued live tokenised assets, demonstrating that tokenisation has moved beyond experimental phases into operational deployment.

Government and corporate bonds lead tokenisation efforts, with 69% of jurisdictions exploring or having issued tokenised bonds (38% exploring, 31% live). This preference reflects bonds’ standardized characteristics, clear legal frameworks, and institutional investor familiarity. Investment funds represent the second most common tokenisation target, followed by real estate, equities, and commercial paper. The focus on institutional-grade assets suggests tokenisation prioritizes efficiency gains in existing markets over creating entirely new asset classes.

Settlement infrastructure for tokenised assets reveals wholesale CBDCs’ strategic importance. Most tokenised asset projects plan settlement via wholesale CBDCs, followed by traditional bank deposits, tokenised deposits, and traditional central bank money. Only one survey respondent indicated stablecoin usage for tokenised asset settlement, reinforcing central banks’ reluctance to rely on private digital currencies for critical financial infrastructure functions.

The technology infrastructure supporting tokenisation varies significantly. While some projects utilize existing centralized databases with blockchain-like features, others employ full distributed ledger implementations with smart contract capabilities. This diversity reflects different regulatory environments, technical requirements, and risk tolerance levels across jurisdictions and asset types. However, the clear trend toward programmable settlement mechanisms suggests that tokenisation will increasingly require sophisticated digital infrastructure regardless of specific technology choices.

Commercial Banks Enter Tokenised Deposits and Stablecoin Markets

Commercial banks increasingly engage with digital asset innovation through two primary channels: tokenised deposits and direct stablecoin issuance. 30% of surveyed jurisdictions have commercial banks working on tokenised deposit projects, with most conducting research and proofs of concept while some prepare for live deployment. This development represents traditional banking’s direct response to emerging digital money competition.

Tokenised deposits offer commercial banks a pathway to participate in digital asset ecosystems while leveraging existing regulatory frameworks and customer relationships. Unlike stablecoins, which often require new regulatory approvals, tokenised deposits typically operate under established banking regulations with digital asset adaptations. This regulatory advantage explains why major banks like JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank have developed tokenised deposit capabilities for institutional clients.

Direct stablecoin issuance by commercial banks remains limited but notable, with 8% of jurisdictions having banks that issued stablecoins. Examples include ANZ Bank in Australia, KBC in Belgium, BTG Pactual in Brazil, and Société Générale in France. These initiatives typically serve specific use cases like crowdfunding, pension payments, intra-bank transfers, or bridging traditional and digital finance ecosystems rather than competing directly with broad-market stablecoins.

The limited adoption of stablecoins by traditional financial market infrastructures (FMIs) as collateral, investment instruments, or settlement assets reinforces their current peripheral role in mainstream finance. However, banks’ direct engagement with digital assets through tokenised deposits and selective stablecoin issuance suggests recognition that digital money innovation will reshape banking services regardless of central bank decisions about CBDCs. This convergence of traditional and digital finance creates complex competitive and collaborative dynamics that will influence future financial system architecture.

Key Implications for the Future of Finance and Central Banking

The 2024 BIS survey reveals a financial system in profound transition, where central banks, commercial banks, and private digital asset providers increasingly operate within overlapping ecosystems rather than separate domains. CBDCs, regulation, and tokenisation advance in tandem, creating complex interdependencies that will reshape monetary systems globally. This convergence suggests the future financial architecture will likely involve multiple digital money types coexisting within unified technological platforms.

For central banks, the survey findings indicate a strategic shift from viewing CBDCs as isolated projects to understanding them as essential infrastructure for broader digital asset ecosystems. Wholesale CBDCs particularly emerge as critical settlement layers for tokenised securities, while retail CBDCs provide public alternatives to private digital payment solutions. This infrastructure role positions central banks as foundational providers in digital finance rather than competitors to private innovation.

The regional divergence in CBDC approaches—with advanced economies pursuing comprehensive dual-track development while emerging markets focus on specific use cases—suggests different pathways toward digital money adoption. However, cross-border interoperability requirements will eventually demand coordination between these different approaches, likely through multilateral initiatives like Project Agorá or bilateral CBDC cooperation agreements.

Perhaps most significantly, the survey demonstrates how external pressures from private digital assets drive public sector innovation timelines. While stablecoins currently serve limited payment functions, their potential evolution forces central banks to develop CBDCs preemptively rather than reactively. This dynamic suggests that competition between public and private digital money will continue accelerating innovation across both sectors, ultimately benefiting users through improved payment system efficiency, financial inclusion, and monetary policy effectiveness.

The implications extend beyond central banking to encompass the entire financial services industry. As digital transformation accelerates, traditional financial institutions must adapt to ecosystems where programmable money, automated settlements, and tokenised assets become standard rather than exceptional. The survey’s findings provide a roadmap for this transformation, highlighting successful approaches while identifying persistent challenges that require continued innovation and international cooperation.