Advertisement

Game-Theoretic Analysis on CBDC Adoption

Conference paper
  • 167 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1385)

Abstract

As an important blockchain application, CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) has received significant worldwide attention as it can restructure financial market, affect national currency policies, and introduce new regulation policies and mechanisms. It is widely predicted that CBDC will introduce numerous digital currency competitions in various aspects of the global financial market, and winners will lead the next wave of digital currency market. This paper applies the game theory to study the competitions between different countries, in particular to analyze whether they should adopt the CBDC program. We propose two game-theoretic models for CBDC adoption, both analyzing whether to adopt the CBDC program via the Nash equilibrium. Both game-theoretic models draw the same conclusion that each country should adopt the CBDC program regardless of the choices of other counties. In other words, current currency leaders should adopt CBDC because it may lose the premier status, and other countries should adopt CBDC otherwise they risk of getting even further behind in the digital economy. According to our game-theoretic models, the current market leader who has 90% of market shares may lose about 19.2% shares if it is not the first mover.

Keywords

Central Bank Digital Currency Game theory Blockchain Currency competition 

References

  1. 1.
    Adrian, T., Mancini-Griffoli, T.: The Rise of Digital Money. No. 19/001 in FinTech Notes, International Monetary Fund (2019)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Libra Association: Libra white paper (2019). https://libra.org/en-US/whitepaper/ Accessed Jun 2019
  3. 3.
    Libra Association: Libra white paper (2020). https://libra.org/en-US/whitepaper/ Accessed Apr 2020
  4. 4.
    Bai, X., Tsai, W.T., Jiang, X.: Blockchain design-A PFMI viewpoint. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), pp. 146–14609. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordo, M., Levin, A.: Central Bank Digital Currency and the Future of Monetary Policy. Technical report No. w23711, National Bureau of Economic Research (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunnermeier, M., James, H., Landau, J.P.: Digital currency areas. Vox CEPR Policy Portal (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernández-Villaverde, J., Sanches, D., Schilling, L., Uhlig, H.: Central Bank Digital Currency: Central Banking For All? Technical Report No. w26753, National Bureau of Economic Research (2020)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fudenberg, D., Tirole, J.: Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, J., Wang, R., Tsai, W.T., Deng, E.: SDFS: a scalable data feed service for smart contracts. In: 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), pp. 581–585. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu, Z., Wu, W.: A game theoretic model of software crowdsourcing. In: IEEE 8th International Symposium on Service Oriented System Engineering, pp. 446–453. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, W., Huhns, M.N., Tsai, W.T., Wu, W. (eds.): Crowdsourcing. PI. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47011-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKelvey, R., McLennan, A., Turocy, T.: Gambit: software tools for game theory (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moshfeghi, Y., Rosero, A.F.H., Jose, J.: A game-theory approach for effective crowdsource-based relevance assessment. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 7(4), 1–25 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics pp. 286–295 (1951)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogoff, K.: The high stakes of the coming digital currency war. Project Syndicate (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roughgarden, T.: Algorithmic game theory. Commun. ACM 53(7), 78–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsai, W.T., Ge, N., Jiang, J., Feng, K., He, J.: Beagle: a new framework for smart contracts taking account of law. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), pp. 134–13411. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsai, W.T., Wang, R., Liu, S., Deng, E., Yang, D.: COMPASS: a data-driven blockchain evaluation framwework. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Service Oriented Systems Engineering (SOSE), pp. 17–30. IEEE (2020)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsai, W.T., Zhao, Z., Zhang, C., Yu, L., Deng, E.: A multi-chain model for CBDC. In: 2018 5th International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications (DSA), pp. 25–34. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yano, S.: New Lanchester Strategy. Lanchester Press Inc. Pennsylvania (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LMIB – School of Mathematics and Systems ScienceBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.SKLSDE – School of Computer Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data and Brain ComputingBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations