Here's some news from Reuters on the coming digital currency

I think there are two separate questions there.

1) There almost certainly are certainly bankers and money-dealers who would love nothing better than fully-digital transactions for everything and everything; not to suit us, but to suit them. It could replace for a start the overheads of local banks or offices staffed by real people, with opaque web-sites and call-centres to ensure you cannot contact anyone or obtain sensible answers.

To them I would say quite bluntly, "Get out in the real world and get a real life you will find full of myriad, small-value, cash transactions in all manner of areas, inhabited by many people who just do not want to have to live by costly smart-'phone contracts just to suit you lot in Canary Wharf!"
'

2) This business of governments controlling our personal finances.... Where did this fear originate? Why would they even want to do that? What would they gain? Would it stamp out the money-launderers and fraudsters?

It might work in a conformist tyranny like China or North Korea where most people have little money and little to enjoy with it anyway; but be electoral suicide in a democracy.

How could it even work? HMRC and the DWP struggle to run things now, thanks to too few staff and too much work; and over-complicated, probably ineptly-designed, systems and procedures.

''''''''

[i]However, let us read the Reuters report again and see what it really says.[/i]

It tells us the cap, advised by the Bank of England not the Treasury, on the [i]digital [/i]currency would be £20 000.

It does NOT say the advised cap on bank accounts, savings, assets, etc. generally would be £20 000; although it does not really explain how the rest would be held unless the text means, "as it is held now"; i.e. in a commercial bank account.

It does NOT say how you spend it will be controlled; beyond presumably no over-draught.
.
.
We should of course bear in mind that we are more or less in that system anyway, since so many of us receive our wages or pensions by bank-transfer; make many payments by bank-transfers or direct-debits, use credit or debit cards regularly, possibly pay at shop tills by 'phone. (I have seen others do so but I do not, nor do I know how it works.) Pay a credit-card bill by ATM and debit-card, and you perform a digital transaction. Even a cheque is digital in operation, nowadays, though it always was a way to ask a bank to transfer money internally from one account to another.

My concern is not this reported cap if it really is just a delimited portion of your savings and with no over-draught arrangement, to pay fees we pay electronically anyway. I worry far more if we would be forced to have a fully electronic account, further than we [i]already[/i] do, by abandoning cash altogether.

An account expensive to run if it forces you to buy expensive telephone contracts you might otherwise neither want or need; and a system crushing a vast array of charitable and voluntary leisure and social activities relying on untold numbers of small cash payments.

"Control" what we spend, within our account limits, though. No.

Not all of us buy from Amazon, Mr. Cunliffe, even if you do; and very many of us have real lives for which the loss of cash would cause all sorts of difficulties your "chips-with-everything" shower seem unable to see for their tiny-screen myopia!

They plan to control the digital currency and more importantly, how and when you can spend it. Did you say something negative about the gov't on social media? Didn't get your 3rd booster this year? Your digital currency account is suddenly locked for a couple of days. No crickets for you or your family to eat.

Everyday I wake up and to something new that nobody has asked for, being forced on us by installed WEF pedos..

They can stick up their butts sideways, how about that?