The Drift to Digital: Cashlessness, CBDCs and the Narratives We Need
Brett Scott in an interview with Caroline Marburger
21 August 2025
Cash is disappearing — not with a bang, but with the quiet hum of terminals, apps, and silent payment flows. Brett Scott argues that there is a systemic drift toward cashlessness, shaped not by a single decision-maker but by the forces of global capitalism. Still, the shift is often narrated as a matter of consumer choice.
A cash advocate, Brett Scott explores the politics of digitization, digital payments, and CBDCs and interrogates not just what people argue, but how they frame the conversation. As digital payments become increasingly dominant, the debate for or against cash, CBDCs or digital payments feels repetitive, invoking familiar binaries: state vs. market, control vs. freedom, innovation vs. nostalgia. The author discusses an anthropological perspective, his experiences in high finance and explains why views on digital central bank currencies seem irreconcilable, and how alternative metaphors could facilitate a less entrenched discussion.
After completing your studies, in both anthropology and international development, you initially worked as a broker. What did you learn about our view of the monetary system during that time?
I ventured into the aggressive world of derivatives trading. This was partly an anthropological adventure, exploring the confusing power structures of the global economy. After all, the best way to understand something is to experience it firsthand.
But after working as a broker for a few years, including during the financial crisis, I realised though that expertise in high finance isn’t necessarily useful for understanding monetary systems. Many people in high finance have a superficial understanding of monetary systems because it is not directly relevant to their jobs. I eventually lost interest in high finance and became more involved with alternative money concepts. In 2013, I published The Heretic’s Guide to Global Finance. Hacking the Future of Money, which connected me with various groups working on alternative financial and monetary systems.
As you write in that book, the mainstream economic and finance debates too often are ‘exclusive talk shops for political elites and economic experts’. You are interested in alternative views. Do ideas from the tech sector — ideas and businesses which we often subsume under the term ‘fintech’ — offer such alternatives?
After the financial crisis, some tech groups saw themselves as being on a revolutionary path to digitising and democratising finance. They claim that the fintech sector is revolutionising finance, but in fact it is merely automating it. They provide what has always driven the capitalist system: automation. And thereby help big tech companies merge with the financial sector.
I realised that this fusion of big finance and big tech is manifesting itself in our society as a kind of ideological attack on the cash system. People are increasingly being shamed for not embracing digital acceleration. This mindset is even influencing central banks’ decisions, such as when they feel they must ‘keep up with the trends’.
You discuss a systemic push towards automation in finance and the decreasing use of cash in your last book, Cloudmoney: Why the War on Cash Endangers Our Money (2023), What do you mean when speaking of systemic changes?
I examine systemic tendencies of global capitalism. In such a system, you have internal pressures to expand and accelerate. Cash clearly slows things down — for Amazon, for example. However, Amazon and similar companies hardly ever pursue a direct anti-cash strategy. Only companies such as VISA or Mastercard have more open agendas, as they lose money when you use cash.
What starts to happen systematically though is: different actors are finding ways to slowly get rid of cash. Banks are closing ATMs and complaining that maintaining the infrastructure is costly, thereby making it harder for you to withdraw, use or deposit cash. This may manifest itself in your environment as a choice.
These changes manifest as choice? What do you mean by that?
For example: Five years ago in London, you could pay with cash or card at a train station. People started using cards. This didn’t mean, however, that they were asking for the cash system to be removed. However, once Transport for London (TfL) knew that enough people had cards, eventually they simply removed the option to pay with cash, allegedly in response to the increase in card use.1
What they have done is allow you to go through not only this but also that door. But then they closed this door. They have locked you in. They are the ones taking the choice away from you. You didn’t ask for it. But it suits their automation purposes. Yet, because you seemingly made a choice, you have this weird dissonance in your head: ‘Well, I guess we chose that, didn’t we?’
There are all these subtle nudging processes at play. This happens all the time in capitalist systems: several players make decisions on your behalf, but it looks like you have chosen something. So, in reality, there is no “war on cash” being waged by one actor but by many different players. But many of them don’t see themselves as agents of these developments. ‘It’s “just business”, isn’t it?’ They see what they do as merely reducing their costs by a tiny percentage.
This systemic push towards a cashless society is also one of the inspirations behind CBDCs such as the digital Euro?
The original advocates of CBDCs were monetary reform groups who claimed that the banking sector was too powerful and that commercial banks have too much power to issue their digital casino chips and dominate our lives with it.
You indeed describe bank or deposit money metaphorically often as „digital casino chips“. Please explain.
Most people when they’re thinking about the euro, the pound or the dollar, they think it’s a singular system. Words like money or the euro , it sounds like it is a single thing. But in reality, these are ecosystems, a chained ecosystem of different players.
You mean the modern two-tier monetary system.
Yes. A way to illustrate the basics of how it works is by using casino chips as a metaphor. Because most people can conceptually make a distinction between cash and the casino chip. It looks different, has a different name. I hand cash to a casino, I get chips, I can use the chips inside the casino, then I can come back, reclaim the cash and walk out. These are two separate forms of money. Cash is like a public form of of money issued by a central bank. The other is a private form of money: a casino chip issued by a particular entity, That is a very useful metaphor for talking about the banking sector, It is not perfect but it helps in order to understand what „going cashless“ also means. You know, what you are using instead of cash? You are using digital casino chips issued by, commercial banks instead. That is what a cashless society is based upon.
And with an increase of cashless payments, the idea of a central bank digital currency suddenly makes more sense?
Some of the early CBDC advocates said: With less cash in use, we need a different type of digital money to counterbalance the increasing power of privately issued money and reduce the power of the banking sector. The banking sector keeps talking about the dangers of disintermediation instead.
In other words, what would happen if commercial banks lost their importance as intermediaries in the two-tier monetary system. When you discussed CBDCs in your newsletter, you said that instead of another “hot take,” we should first think about the underlying assumptions. Why do you think that is so important?
Because people reach certain default conclusions depending on their political background. Without thinking about it. Your mind will just work it out for you. That’s why I talk about your background as a chessboard or game board that you have set up. The way you imagine society will affect how you analyse specific things within that context.
Which standard background assumptions are there and what conclusions do they usually lead to with regard to CBDCs?
If your background assumption is that first there is a fundamental distinction between government and market and second, that there’s a war going on between the market and the state — a classic libertarian assumption — you’ll automatically assume that a CBDC or the digital euro is the state’s attempt to dominate the market.
And the more left-wing perspective?
If you’re coming from a traditionally socialist perspective, the assumption tends to be that the whole society can work together to achieve a common goal: Right now, our system might still be dominated by big corporations, but if we all work together, we can create a better monetary system. A socialist or left-wing view of a CBDC would argue that the digital euro is currently being co-opted and watered down by the banking sector, essentially having its power removed so that it doesn’t compete with the banking sector. What should be done instead is to create a more powerful CBDC that could counteract the banking sector’s power.
And you also outline another perspective.
Yes, there is a more “anarchist” viewpoint. I come from an economic anthropology background, which has a strong tradition of examining the intricate connections between states and markets, and their symbiotic relationship. Because economic anthropology was originally closely connected with colonialism, you’d be highly aware of how imperial powers created markets. For example, they did this by forcibly making people pay taxes. Conquerors pulled the conquered into market structures by making them dependent on money. Precisely because it has witnessed first-hand the way states can artificially create markets, economic anthropology has a long history of such ‘anarchist viewpoints’. From that viewpoint thee supposed battle between the state and the market isn’t a battle. Rather, states underpin markets. And instead you debate the relative power of the different stakeholders.
If these basic assumptions shape our perception of a digital euro, what implications does this have for democratic discourse and debate? How can we avoid miscommunication and ensure that we facilitate a balanced discussion – without favouring one perspective over another?
That’s a fundamental communication challenge. Sometimes an idea fails to resonate because it’s not received properly. Finding ways to create accessible narratives is key. For instance, I try to effectively bypass political differences. I talk about cash being that public bicycle of payments versus the digital payments being the private Uber of payments: quite an effective way to immediately disrupt a bunch of ideas in somebody’s head. It is not a particularly ideological position. Rather, it is a structural statement about diversity and balance of power. Many can understand that it makes sense to keep both bicycle and Uber as options. It is also one of the most effective analogies because, there’s positive value attached to a bicycle. As an image, it breaks with the assumption of conventional narratives of progress, according to which greater complexity, speed, and scale are always better.
Different metaphors can illustrate various points. I also use the analogy of stairs versus lifts to discuss systemic resilience. Lift operators focus on profits by installing lifts rather than maintaining the stairs in your building. However, even though you use the lift almost all the time, you would probably still like the option of using the stairs. While lifts are convenient, having stairs as an alternative is crucial in case of an emergency. This analogy highlights the importance of having multiple options.
I think the bicycle-Uber metaphor is particularly effective because it conveys the positive values associated with bicycles, while challenging the idea that complexity, speed and scale are always better. Although simplicity is underrepresented in economic discussions, it resonates with many people. Such metaphors can therefore bypass standard political narratives.
People generally prefer to have more options. Even those who advocate digital advancements acknowledge the importance of maintaining choice. Asking them questions such as ‘Why are your options being reduced?’ can be revealing. When faced with the removal of cash, many people revert to narratives about progress. Asking why their options are being limited can encourage deeper thought and discussion.
You are first and foremost an advocate for cash and criticise the trend towards digital payments. A CBDC like the digital euro is intended to be ‘digital cash’, which is potentially a more cash-like digital payment method. What is your take on that?
The official discourse is often uninspiring, probably partly due to constraints on what institutions such as the ECB can express. Their statements are often banal. While this is not always the case, my experience of public consultations in the UK, as well as official statements from organisations such as the Bank for International Settlements and individuals like Christine Lagarde, is that they are often very generic. They keep talking about quiet advancements towards innovation.
I am frustrated by their refusal to acknowledge the politics of digitisation. They discuss it as if it were simply a matter of public preference, ignoring the structural processes and power dynamics at play. I question why people are moving away from cash. They fail to consider who is driving these changes. Their blanket statements inadvertently endorse current trends rather than them adopting a leadership role and critically examine the underlying reasons. Beyond basic Economics 101 explanations. This lack of depth is disappointing.
On the one hand, a CBDC could be seen as a further push towards digital payments, potentially rendering cash obsolete. On the other hand, a digital euro could offer an alternative in a digital space dominated by private money, providing more options for transactions, especially online. The EU’s current legislative package combines one piece of legislation that guarantees the preservation of cash and another that introduces the digital euro. What are your thoughts on this dual approach?
In a rapidly expanding capitalist system, merely stating neutrality towards cash doesn’t halt the systemic processes at play. Central banks often indirectly facilitate the transition to cashless systems. For instance, in the UK, they have permitted the decline in cash usage by not intervening. This isn’t neutrality; it’s a passive endorsement of the trend. I am more in favour of supporting cash than CBDCs, which ties into my broader scepticism about endless automation and digitisation.
These trends are unsustainable in the long run. While structural forces push towards these trends, a public version of digital systems might be preferable to a purely private one. If your role involves improving digital payment systems, introducing a public player could be beneficial. However, while improving the balance of power between different digital money players is important, this should never be allowed to act as a back-door way to push ever more digitisation in general.
I don’t fully agree with the underlying assumption. There is a risk that advocating for CBDCs could inadvertently support a broader anti-physicality movement, which could be more damaging than the public–private debate. The real issue is digital-physical dualism and the relentless push for acceleration.
There is significant discussion around the offline capabilities of CBDCs, with substantial funding allocated for their development. However, in my opinion, central banks should demonstrate real leadership by offering a vision that goes beyond the expected digitisation of money. Although digitisation is often touted as innovative, it merely follows expected trends and fails to address deeper human needs. People are increasingly burnt out by the relentless push for speed and efficiency.
I’m glad that responsible digitisation is being considered by your institute, but it remains within the overarching discourse. The non-digitisation perspective is often dismissed as nostalgia. However, a cultural shift could occur if people started to see analogue and non-digital things as forward-looking and essential, rather than just nostalgic or backward. This is especially important to consider in light of resource constraints and our dependency on digital systems. Responsible digitisation should form part of a broader programme aimed at rebalancing our systems.
Back to the eFin-Blog
More about the Project eFin & Democracy
1 Editor’s note: Due to protests, a complete cash-free solution was abolished in June 2021, however, and cash is accepted again in many places.