Why Europe's Digital Euro Is Becoming a Strategic Necessity

Source: Coindoo Original Title: Why Europe’s Digital Euro Is Becoming a Strategic Necessity Original Link: A group of prominent economists is urging Europe to rethink how it treats money in a digital world - not as a convenience issue, but as a question of power.

In a public appeal sent to lawmakers, they argue that the eurozone risks losing control over its financial infrastructure unless it moves forward with a central bank-issued digital currency.

Key Takeaways

• Economists warn Europe risks losing control of its payment system without a digital euro.
• The digital euro is framed as public infrastructure, not a replacement for cash.
• A 2026 parliamentary vote will decide whether Europe moves forward or stays reliant on foreign payment networks.

The message, backed by 68 economists including Thomas Piketty, arrives just as EU institutions prepare for pivotal negotiations that could determine whether the digital euro becomes reality or remains an unfinished project.

Why Economists See Urgency Now

The core concern is not crypto competition, but dependence. Today, most digital payments in Europe flow through non-European systems. Card networks, online wallets, and emerging dollar-based stablecoins increasingly sit at the center of everyday transactions, leaving Europe reliant on infrastructure it does not govern.

The economists warn that this reliance carries long-term risks. Control over payment rails shapes everything from sanctions policy to consumer privacy and financial stability. Without a public alternative, Europe could find itself exposed to decisions made in foreign boardrooms rather than Brussels or Frankfurt.

The Digital Euro as Public Infrastructure

Unlike private payment solutions, the proposed digital euro would be issued by the European Central Bank and function as a digital form of public money. It would coexist with cash, not replace it, ensuring that citizens retain access to state-backed money even as physical banknotes become less dominant.

To address concerns about bank disintermediation, the design includes limits on individual holdings, widely discussed at around €3,000 per person. The idea is to preserve financial stability while still offering a universally accessible digital payment option.

A Fragmented Payments Landscape

Supporters point out that Europe lacks a unified digital payments system spanning all eurozone countries. In more than a dozen member states, consumers have no domestic digital payment network and must rely on foreign cards or apps for everyday transactions.

A digital euro could act as a shared foundation, enabling instant payments across borders without routing activity through private intermediaries. Advocates argue this would strengthen competition, reduce fees, and make Europe’s payment system more resilient during crises.

Institutional Backing, Private Resistance

Momentum has been building within EU institutions. In late 2025, the European Council endorsed plans to give the digital euro the same legal standing as physical cash, signaling political willingness to treat it as core monetary infrastructure.

At the same time, resistance from Europe’s banking sector remains strong. Major lenders argue that the project could be costly, technically complex, and disruptive to private innovation. They fear it may crowd out commercial payment solutions and compress margins.

A Choice That Extends Beyond Technology

The economists behind the letter frame the debate as a strategic decision rather than a technical one. In their view, failing to create a digital euro would effectively outsource Europe’s payment sovereignty to foreign firms and currencies.

A decisive vote in the European Parliament, expected later in 2026, will determine the project’s fate. Whatever the outcome, the decision will shape how money moves within Europe – and who ultimately controls the rails beneath the continent’s digital economy.

For supporters, the digital euro is about ensuring that public money remains relevant in a digital age. For opponents, it is an unnecessary intervention. But as the economists warn, choosing not to act may itself be the most consequential decision of all.