The Future of Money Is Already Here: ISO 20022, Digital Currencies, Basic Income and Agenda 2030

Most people already use digital money: salaries arrive on cards, purchases are paid for by phone, and transfers are made through banking apps. Yet money in a bank account is not the same thing as a central bank digital currency.

A deeper transformation is taking place at the same time. Banks are adopting the ISO 20022 financial messaging standard, central banks are developing their own digital currencies, and governments are testing different forms of guaranteed payments and basic income.

These developments are often presented as parts of a “new digital system.” In our view, they do resemble pieces of one puzzle that may shape everyday life in the future. That is why it is important to distinguish what already exists, what is being tested, and what remains only a possible scenario.

The short answer

ISO 20022 is an international standard that lets banks and payment systems exchange structured financial information.

CBDC is digital money issued directly by a country’s central bank.

Universal basic income is a regular payment made without traditional income or employment tests.

The UN 2030 Agenda consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including poverty reduction, social protection, financial inclusion and reduced inequality.

A shared digital infrastructure could technically connect payments, government benefits, identity and financial oversight within a single system. That possibility deserves public attention.

Digital money already exists — but who owes it to you?

When you see 10,000 units of your national currency in a banking app, that balance is a commercial bank’s liability to you. The bank keeps the record and promises to pay or transfer the corresponding amount.

A cash banknote is a direct liability of the central bank. You do not need an account with a private bank, a smartphone or an internet connection to use it.

A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, attempts to bring some qualities of cash into the digital world.

Three forms of money

Cash Physical notes and coins issued by the state. Small cash transactions do not leave the same digital trail as card payments.
Commercial bank money A digital record held by a commercial bank. Payments pass through banks, card networks and other intermediaries.
CBDC A digital form of national currency and a direct liability of the central bank. Depending on its design, it may be stored in a dedicated wallet or banking app.

A CBDC is not Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency. Its value is not meant to float freely: one digital dollar, euro or hryvnia should equal one conventional unit of the same currency.

What is ISO 20022?

Banks, payment systems, exchanges and public agencies may describe the same transaction in different ways. ISO 20022 gives them a shared, structured “language.”

Consider an international transfer. An older message may contain only the amount, account number and a short payment reference. An ISO 20022 message can carry much more organized information:

the payer and recipient;
the type of payment;
an account or invoice number;
tax and commercial details;
information needed for automated checks;
the reason a payment was returned or rejected.

This can speed up transfers, reduce errors and make financial systems in different countries work together more easily. At the same time, richer structured data creates broader opportunities for automated analysis of transactions.

State-issued digital currencies are already operating

CBDCs have not yet become everyday money for most of the world’s population, but they are no longer merely theoretical.

the Sand Dollar in The Bahamas;
the eNaira in Nigeria;
JAM-DEX in Jamaica;
DCash in the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union.

China has conducted large-scale trials of the digital yuan, while India is piloting a digital rupee. The European Central Bank is preparing a digital euro, although any final launch depends on EU legislation.

According to a Bank for International Settlements survey published in 2025, 91% of the 93 central banks surveyed were exploring a retail CBDC, a wholesale CBDC or both. That does not mean every one of them will issue digital currency, but the scale of interest is no longer a niche experiment.

Ukraine’s central bank is also working on an e-hryvnia project. It describes the e-hryvnia as a digital form of the national currency that could complement cash and conventional cashless money. No decision on a large-scale launch has yet been made.

Why do central banks want CBDCs?

Central banks commonly cite several goals:

faster and cheaper payments;
financial access for people without bank accounts;
lower-cost international transfers;
preserving the role of public money as private payment platforms grow;
reducing dependence on foreign card networks;
countering money laundering and financial crime;
supporting payments without an internet connection;
modernizing public payment infrastructure.

For small island states, digital currency can improve access where bank branches are costly to operate. For larger countries, faster settlement, monetary sovereignty and competition with private digital money may matter more.

What should concern us?

Privacy

Cash can be handed to another person without registering the transaction in a bank database. A digital payment normally leaves a record. The European Central Bank promises strong privacy for a digital euro, especially for offline payments, but the real level of privacy will depend not only on technical promises but also on the law and the system’s design.

Programmability

Digital payments can technically be made conditional. Funds could be released to a seller only after delivery, for example, or limited to particular goods and a specific period.

The Bank of England says the government should not determine how owners spend digital pounds. Ukraine’s central bank, meanwhile, has explored possible programmable-money functions as part of its e-hryvnia project.

Dependence on infrastructure

A digital wallet may depend on electricity, a device, software and a functioning payment network. Offline capability can reduce this vulnerability, but it cannot remove it entirely.

Financial exclusion

Older people, residents of remote areas and citizens without modern devices could be placed at a disadvantage if digital payments gradually displace cash.

Centralization

The more financial functions that are connected to one infrastructure, the greater the consequences of an error, cyberattack, account freeze or abuse of power.

The crucial question is therefore not only whether CBDCs will appear, but who controls the system, what data it collects and what rights users retain.

What if a government decides to punish “inconvenient” people?

Supporters of digital systems usually assess them according to their stated purpose: faster payments, crime prevention, child protection or easier access to public services.

Governments, laws and political circumstances change, however. Infrastructure created by one administration for a lawful purpose may later come under the control of people who use it as an instrument of pressure.

If one digital ecosystem can potentially connect a person’s identity, online posts, public benefits and access to money, it creates a dangerous possibility: punishing someone not for a proven crime but for views, criticism or political activity.

In the worst case, this could mean:

automatic freezing of a digital wallet;
restrictions on particular purchases or transfers;
withdrawal of a social benefit;
heightened financial scrutiny;
restricted access to public or digital services;
lists of “high-risk” or “untrustworthy” citizens;
combining financial data with information from social media.

China. There is no single universal score assigned to every citizen, but the country does have a state social-credit framework, and court blacklists for judgment defaulters can already bring restrictions on air travel, high-speed rail and luxury purchases.

Australia. Since December 2025, platforms have had to take steps to prevent users under 16 from holding social-media accounts; several age-assurance methods may be used, although the government explicitly says official ID cannot be the only available option.

United States. California’s AB 1043 will require operating systems from 2027 to collect an age or date of birth during account setup and send apps an age-bracket signal; a broader federal proposal has also been introduced, but it has not become law.

The stated justification for these measures is safety, child protection and legal compliance. Together, however, they show how quickly infrastructure can emerge that links a digital identity to access to services. Privacy guarantees, the right to appeal automated decisions and continued access to cash should therefore be secured before mass deployment, not after abuse occurs.

Where does universal basic income fit in?

Universal basic income, or UBI, is a regular payment received regardless of employment and without a traditional means test.

The case for UBI It could reduce extreme poverty, simplify welfare systems, provide minimum financial security and support people affected by automation.

The case against UBI Critics point to its cost, possible tax increases, inflation risks and the question of whether rich and poor people should receive the same payment.

Finland ran a well-known experiment in 2017–2018: 2,000 unemployed people received €560 per month without the usual conditions. The effect on employment was small, but participants reported better wellbeing, less mental strain and greater confidence in the future.

UBI does not require a CBDC; it can be paid into conventional bank accounts. A central bank digital currency could, however, make such payments direct, rapid and automated. That is where two separate ideas may intersect.

How is this connected to the 2030 Agenda?

In 2015, UN member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals include ending poverty, expanding social protection and financial services, reducing inequality, building reliable infrastructure and lowering the cost of remittances.

The Agenda itself does not require CBDCs, ISO 20022 or universal basic income. Claims that every country committed to replacing cash with programmable digital money by 2030 are not supported by the document.

The UN does view digital finance as one possible tool for achieving development goals. Infrastructure built by banks and governments can also be used for social payments, digital financial identity and oversight of public funds. A connection therefore exists, but that does not prove a single centralized program with a predetermined outcome.

How could the pieces work together?

A state issues a central bank digital currency.
A person stores it in a digital wallet.
Benefits or basic-income payments are delivered directly to that wallet.
Banks and public systems use ISO 20022 to exchange standardized information.
Digital identification confirms eligibility for funds.
Payments move instantly within a country or across borders.

Such a model could be fast, inexpensive and convenient. It could also give governments and financial institutions unprecedented capacity to analyze economic activity. Without meaningful limits, the same system could create excessive dependence on digital identity, a centralized platform and administrative decisions.

Benefits and risks of a digital financial system

Infographic comparing the opportunities and risks of the digital economy — Click the image to open the full-size version.

Technology does not determine the outcome by itself. It depends on the law, the architecture of the system and who controls it.

What could change for an ordinary person?

At first, the changes may be almost invisible. Transfers may clear faster, bank statements may contain more information, and public payments may arrive automatically.

Over time, the role of the bank account itself could change. People might hold some money in central-bank wallets, while international payments become faster and cheaper.

The central question is whether the digital system remains a tool for people or people become completely dependent on the system.

Conclusion

ISO 20022, central bank digital currencies, universal basic income and the 2030 Agenda are distinct developments. There is no evidence that they form one mandatory global mechanism.

They are nevertheless moving in a common direction: money, public services, benefits and identity are becoming increasingly digital.

This transformation offers genuine benefits, including cheaper payments, faster emergency support, financial access and convenience. It also carries genuine risks: loss of privacy, digital exclusion, technical dependence and concentrated control.

Society should neither panic nor accept every innovation without scrutiny. The future of digital money will be shaped not only by technology but by the rules people agree to live under.