Shahaf Bar-Geffen, co-founder of blockchain technology company COTI, believes the debate around central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will gradually cool as major financial institutions adopt the technology and more practical design standards emerge. In his view, CBDCs should be understood less as an attack on decentralized cryptocurrencies and more as an effort by central banks and governments to modernize payment infrastructure.
Privacy and payment efficiency are central to the CBDC case
Bar-Geffen argues that one of the clearest benefits of CBDCs is their potential to deliver fast, low-friction cross-border payments. That capability, he says, could help bring public-sector money into line with the expectations of a digital economy, where users increasingly demand speed, convenience, and seamless access to financial services.
At the same time, he stresses that privacy cannot be treated as optional. According to Bar-Geffen, any serious CBDC design must include mechanisms that protect user data while still operating within a regulated financial system. He cited COTI’s previous work with the Bank of Israel in the Digital Shekel challenge, where the company was tasked with integrating its privacy technology into a CBDC framework. For him, that kind of privacy-preserving architecture is a basic requirement for implementation, not an added feature.
Global approaches remain divided
CBDC development is moving at different speeds across jurisdictions. Some countries and central banks are openly experimenting with pilots and technical frameworks, while others remain deeply skeptical. Bar-Geffen pointed to the United States as a notable example of resistance, noting that the Trump administration issued an executive order that effectively barred federal agencies from creating a CBDC.
Still, he does not interpret the slower pace in some markets as evidence that the technology lacks relevance. Instead, he frames it as a reflection of how difficult large-scale technological transitions can be for traditional financial institutions. Banks and legacy payment networks operate under significant operational and regulatory constraints, making major infrastructure upgrades slow by nature.
He also noted that many CBDC initiatives are still in the research and development phase. However, he pointed to signs of acceleration in Europe, saying the European Central Bank has indicated that its testing stage is nearing completion and has signaled plans to launch its CBDC by the end of the year.
Why Bitcoin may not be the main target
One of the most common narratives in crypto circles is that governments are developing CBDCs to counter the rise of decentralized assets such as Bitcoin (BTC). Bar-Geffen rejects that framing. He argues that Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are fundamentally different from CBDCs because they are built around characteristics such as fixed supply and high decentralization.
Those design features place Bitcoin in a different category altogether. In his assessment, CBDCs are not built to replace or directly compete with decentralized cryptocurrencies. Their role is closer to digital fiat infrastructure than to a censorship-resistant monetary alternative.
That distinction matters because it shifts the competitive focus. Rather than confronting Bitcoin head-on, Bar-Geffen believes CBDCs are more likely to put pressure on stablecoins, which already serve as an important bridge between traditional currencies and the crypto economy. If CBDCs become widely available and offer efficient payments with state backing, they could challenge the use cases that have helped stablecoins gain traction.
Stablecoins may remain the bridge to crypto
Even while acknowledging that CBDCs could compete with stablecoins, Bar-Geffen does not expect central bank-issued digital currencies to fully absorb the role stablecoins currently play in crypto markets. In particular, he downplayed the idea that CBDCs will be widely designed to interface directly with decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols or broader Web3 ecosystems.
That means stablecoins may continue to hold a strategic advantage in open blockchain environments. Because they are already deeply integrated into trading, lending, settlement, and on-chain liquidity, stablecoins are still likely to remain the primary connective tissue between fiat systems and decentralized applications. In that sense, CBDCs and stablecoins may compete in some areas while coexisting in others.
Bar-Geffen also pushed back against claims from some vocal crypto advocates that governments are pursuing CBDCs mainly as a way to take control of the crypto industry. His comments suggest a narrower interpretation: CBDCs are primarily about improving sovereign money systems and upgrading payment rails, not necessarily about replacing the broader digital asset ecosystem.
COTI’s broader regional strategy
Beyond CBDCs, Bar-Geffen highlighted COTI’s role in the newly launched Africa Tokenization Council. He said the initiative is intended to accelerate blockchain adoption across Africa and the Middle East by bringing together regional authorities and global blockchain experts.
According to his description, the goal is to streamline decision-making, help secure funding, and speed up the deployment of blockchain-based solutions in regions where digital financial infrastructure may still be developing. The initiative reflects COTI’s broader effort to position itself not only as a technology provider, but also as a participant in shaping institutional blockchain adoption in emerging markets.
Five-year outlook
Looking ahead, Bar-Geffen said CBDCs are likely to become widely used in at least some parts of the world within five years. Whether that outcome produces more benefits than risks, however, will depend on the groundwork being done now. Questions around privacy, system design, institutional coordination, and public trust remain central to the success of any rollout.
His comments ultimately present CBDCs as a technology still in transition: politically contested, technically complex, but increasingly difficult for major institutions to ignore. If adoption continues, the biggest disruption may not fall on Bitcoin, as some critics and supporters assume, but on stablecoins that currently dominate the digital fiat layer of the crypto market.