Are Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), the state-backed digital equivalents of traditional money, really the future of how we pay? Imagine sending money abroad instantly, or transferring rent to your landlord without bank delays or fees. This vision is powerful, but there is a problem: central banks still don’t understand how to make people actually use them. Why people don't want to use CBDCs, even if they are technically advanced, how design and user experience affect trust in digital currencies, and what mistakes in the cryptocurrency market CBDC developers should take into account to avoid failure, Danylo Rumyantsev, Tech and WEB 3 entrepreneur, co-founder of United Network, told Mind.
From my experience of designing secure hardware, I can tell you exactly where this is heading: technically driven digital currencies will stay unused because banks don't build them for humans, but rather for tech-savvy economists.
Every payment innovation survives or fails on one question: will people actually use it? Based on the track record of financial innovation, building the perfect system has never guaranteed that people will adopt it. Contactless cards existed for years before adoption took off, and not because the tech got better, but because it became as easy as tapping a card. Bitcoin, too, had groundbreaking blockchain tech, but it remained niche until exchanges made it simple to buy.
CBDCs are likely to face the same harsh reality. It doesn’t matter if a system can process a million transactions per second if nobody can figure out how to buy a coffee with it. Yet, central banks keep focusing on prioritizing technical specifications over human behavior.
Look at what’s already happened. Nigeria launched its eNaira in 2021 with massive government backing, but adoption remains dismal. Only 700,000 consumers downloaded the eNaira wallet out of over 200 million Nigerians since the currency's launch. The Bahamas' Sand Dollar works flawlessly from a technical standpoint, but it hasn't transformed how Bahamians actually pay for things. Technical success means nothing without behavioral adoption.
Having designed consumer security devices at United Network, I can spot overcomplicated security from miles away. Too many proposed CBDC systems make the classic mistake: they confuse complex security with effective protection. Seed phrases, private key exports, and multi-signature wallets will only scare off normal users.
Real security is invisible security. Your credit card doesn't require you to understand EMV chip technology to stay safe. Your smartphone doesn't make you manage encryption keys to protect your photos. Effective security systems protect users without requiring them to become security experts.
CBDCs should follow this principle ruthlessly. Biometric authentication, automatic backup systems, and fraud detection should work seamlessly in the background. Most importantly, self-custody must be effortless: people must be able to hold their own money simply and safely, without mastering cryptography. And when something goes wrong (because it always does), recovery should be supportive and straightforward. If your CBDC requires users to understand cryptographic concepts, you've already failed.
The cryptocurrency industry spent a decade learning what not to do, and CBDCs should study every failure. Early Bitcoin wallets were disasters of user experience. They had complex installations, confusing interfaces, and recovery processes that required computer science degrees. Most people gave up before finishing a single transaction.
Success came with products that had familiar patterns, like card-like form factors, simple tap-to-pay interactions, and recovery systems that didn't assume technical expertise.
The lesson is clear. Complex crypto wallets remain niche products used by traders and crypto enthusiasts. Simple, card-like solutions are beginning to bring cryptocurrency access to mainstream users who would never have considered traditional wallet software. CBDCs should skip the painful trial-and-error and start with a straightforward, user-friendly design from the very beginning.
Central banks often make a mistake when they assume government backing automatically creates user trust. Legal tender status doesn't equal user confidence. Transparency, education, and clear benefits that improve people's daily financial lives earn people's trust.
People want to know why CBDCs matter to them personally. Faster international transfers, no hidden bank fees, instant settlement are tangible advantages if explained in plain language. The problem is that most central bank messaging gets lost in monetary policy jargon. The EU’s digital euro highlights the challenge. People don’t doubt the ECB’s ability to build it, but they do question whether it’s necessary, and they worry about what it means for privacy.
Trust building requires consistent, jargon-free communication about how CBDCs work, why they're safe, and how personal data gets protected. People should understand precisely what information governments can and cannot access. Partnerships help too. A CBDC built into the banking apps people already use will feel far more trustworthy than a standalone government app. Trust is easier to transfer from familiar institutions than to create from scratch.
CBDCs have one chance to get mass adoption right. The first implementations will shape public perception for years. If early CBDCs feel complicated, unsafe, or unnecessary, recovery will be nearly impossible. People who try digital currency once and have a poor experience rarely give a second chance.
Here's what needs to happen: central banks need to stop thinking like central banks and start thinking like the companies that build the apps people actually love using. That means putting user research ahead of blockchain specs, making things accessible instead of feature-packed, and measuring success by how many people actually use the thing.
The choice here is simple. Build CBDCs that feel natural, transparent, and beneficial to everyday users, or watch billions in development funding create impressive technical demonstrations that gather dust in app stores. The technology is already here, but the real question is whether governments will design it for people.