Is cash digitization inevitable? Who benefits, who loses

Guillaum Lepecq and I are discussing the importance and attributes of cash, the limits of cash payments, the offensive of banks and digital giants and the ability to track and control citizens.

Sonia Priwiew: You founded CashEssentials. For what purpose, what does she do?

Guillaume Lepecq: CashEssentials to think-tank, a non-profit organization that was founded in 2018. I'd say he has a triple mission. The first is to encourage investigation into cash and its future. The second is to inform about its economical and social function and the various challenges facing the planet of cash. The 3rd is to stimulate the debate on money and its evolution.

The starting point was that cash was completely absent in any discussion about the evolution of money. The most widespread was the thought that the digitization of money is inevitable and desirable. Much more was said about the technological dimension of this evolution than about its social, economical and political implications.

We felt that we should take part in this debate and say that although digitalisation is undoubtedly an crucial factor, it is not the only one.

Work!

In fact, there are a number of another factors behind digitisation, specified as the privatisation of money, the debate on privacy protection, issues of national sovereignty and resilience. We wanted cash to be represented in this debate, due to the fact that it is simply a very crucial topic.

Is this successful today, a greater commitment to the debate on the future of cash and money? Have there been any affirmative changes in this direction?

Positive changes? Yeah, I think so. I think there are respective elements.

Firstly, the discussion on cash liquidation is nothing new. American author Edward Bellamy imagined in utopian fiction “A 100 years later, or 2000,” published in 1888 that cash disappeared for credit cards. This is so a debate that goes back many decades. This is simply a debate involving respective very powerful players with almost unlimited resources, who care very much about the external message.

I live in Paris, where the Olympics were held last summer. Visa is 1 of the main sponsors of the Olympics as well as the planet Football Championship.

We know Visa, according to his yearly report, spends over a billion dollars a year on communications and marketing. It is so a spectacular promotion of electronic means of payment.

I'm talking about Vis, but we can besides talk about MasterCard, Facebook and another digital giants who besides advance money digitisation. Compared to these giants, we're dwarfs.

Are we dealing with a affirmative trend? We see, first of all, that cash didn't disappear. Not only did it not disappear, but we saw during Covid, for example, that there was an increased request for cash at global level. This means that there is very advanced public assurance in cash. The second origin is that more and more countries are aware of the risks of over-speed or over-digitisation and are starting to take measures to warrant the future of cash. This is most likely not enough, in any cases it is late, but I announcement affirmative changes.

What are the attributes of cash that we don't necessarily think about right away, but that another means of payment do not have? What's the main difference?

It's an extended subject. In fact, erstwhile we created CashEssentials, we published a white paper entitled CashEssentials – Beyond Payments [1] in which we listed twenty-one circumstantial attributes of cash.

This starts with her educational function – children learn not only to number but besides to learn the value of things, creating a scale of value utilizing their pocket money at a very, very young age.

Banknotes besides transmit the values of a given society. A fresh Australian survey has shown that all sixth banknote in the planet represents wildlife, especially endangered species, which helps to convey the message that biodiversity should be protected. If we go to India, the bills have a image of Gandhi, Mandela, South Africa, and so on. There is so a full aspect of the transfer of cultural and social values. This besides involves national sovereignty.

However, in the current economical and geopolitical context, I would first of all mention 4 key attributes of cash. The first is the question of integration, preventing financial and social exclusion. Cash is available and useful to everyone, without discrimination, either due to ethnicity, gender, wealth, standard of surviving or sexual preference. I was talking about the Olympics in Paris, and then we had the Paralympic Games. It struck me that all sixth individual in the planet is disabled. Many of these disabilities hinder the usage of electronic payments. People who are blind or visually impaired come to mind, as well as people who have no advanced limb or have functional difficulties with advanced limb, but there are besides a full array of another disabilities, including intellectual disabilities. So we're talking about 1 individual in six people around the world.

Moreover, according to the United Nations, 1.1 billion people live in utmost poverty. And according to the latest planet Bank survey [2], over a 3rd of the world's population has never made a digital payment. Never.

That's truly amazing statistics.

Today, cash guarantees the inclusion of specified persons. The numbers talk for themselves, but possibly we should think of Afghan women who are forbidden to talk publicly. It's tragic. But the deficiency of access to payment means is simply a substance of survival.

So little cash barriers than with digitization – for everyone to have access to means of payment. Can we put it this way?

This is not about opposing digitalisation, on the contrary. But digitalization requires, from the very beginning, a digital tool, a digital skill, a financial institution that will open an account that will give you a card.

The second component is the protection of privacy and civilian rights. I think that cash is possibly the last area of freedom where consumers, or possibly even more than consumers – citizens – can avoid surveillance by Bigtech and governments.

Work!

Do we inactive have the right to be a consumer, to read a book, to support an organization without being followed by both? It is, of course, a political issue, a question of social choice. Mark Zuckerberg said that privacy ceased to be anyway. Great. surely not my opinion. I do not think that I am alone in reasoning that the concept of privacy has evolved with social networks, but is inactive crucial. If you have access to all transactions of a given person, this is much more information than provided in social media. This must be done, due to the fact that if this area of freedom disappears, it will be very difficult, possibly impossible to restore.

Finally, unfortunately, the 3rd issue is overall resilience - Resilience English. Cash is essential to warrant economical resilience, for example in the event of a natural disaster. We found this during fresh floods in Poland and east Europe.

That's right.

Also in the event of a technological failure, erstwhile the payment strategy fails, and this happens in reality all day. all day, somewhere in the world, a bank or 1 of the players in the digital chain fails, and electronic payments are prevented. Worse still, this is besides the case for cyber attacks or war.

We saw that following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Poland there was a abrupt request for cash, which was seldom seen in history. I would so draw the opinion that in this increasingly complex geopolitical situation, the issue of resilience is fundamental.

There is besides a 4th element, namely the fact that cash plays a function as an economical stabiliser, which is mostly due to the fact that society has assurance in cash and that in times of crisis, in times of uncertainty, people tend to increase their cash savings to deal with this uncertainty. This is something that we observed on a global scale during the Covid pandemic.

So these 4 factors are very important. This answers to my next question to any extent, but what precisely does it answer the arguments of those who say: digitalisation will aid reduce the grey zone, fight money laundering and terrorism? We are repeatedly told these arguments.

Well, it's a beautiful easy argument, I'd even say it's simple. We may request to remind you of any grounds: cash is not illegal. It is simply a means of payment issued by a central bank, a public entity. So there is nothing illegal about utilizing cash or paying cash. Does that encourage a grey zone?

First of all, let us separate between the grey zone, money laundering and terrorist financing. Part of the cash in circulation is likely to be utilized by persons active in money laundering or the grey zone. It would be foolish to deny it. But the same people usage the Internet, cars, and a full scope of public goods. We will not destruct these goods simply due to the fact that any people misuse them.

However, if we want to talk about serious crimes, terrorism and so on, they do not trust on cash at all. The transfer of cash on a global scale is besides complicated erstwhile we have cryptocurrency, taxation havens worldwide and a full scope of financial tools that are much more efficient than cash.

Unless I am mistaken, Panama Papers [3] did not uncover immense amounts of cash. What has been revealed is frequently legal companies utilizing offshore platforms to launder money on a mass scale.

When we tried to punish Russian oligarchs after the invasion of Ukraine, we besides did not find any cash bags, but we found yachts, football clubs, and residences on the Azure Coast or in Liguria. So we request to get free of this myth. I'm sorry, but the argument seems truly simple to me.

Moreover, I would add that there are a full array of technologies that let the tracking of banknotes after all, including dogs that can detect ink. There are surely people who pay cash to their gardener or babysitter. frequently due to the fact that it's easier not to pay taxes. But let us not identify this with serious crime.

It's a perfect answer that puts things in perspective. We can barely afford this distance erstwhile we're threatened by terrorism. Let's decision on to the next method detail. Does cash payment management cost more than digital payment management? Do we have any data on this?

There is rich economical literature on this subject, whose results vary importantly according to methodology, country and, unfortunately, organisations that commissioned research. It's not easy to put it all together.

I can give an opinion alternatively than a summary. Firstly, erstwhile we talk about payments, it is about retail payments due to the fact that we are not talking about large stock transfers and financial transfers. This includes a immense variety of players, quotas and configurations. buying in a supermarket, on a large national or global network, is not the same as going to a coffee store in a tiny town or lunch in Zakopane. So costs can be very different. The second thing is that in all these studies, depending on the country, cash is not always the cheapest, but it is rather competitive.

I would be inclined to say that cash is frequently cheaper for tiny businesses, cafes, restaurants, shops on the corner. They do not have the ability to negociate with their bank, nor with the players, and for them the digital cost is bank account, terminal rental, fraud management and so on.

On the another hand, a large global network, e.g. fast food or other, has the ability to negociate sales contracts and automate all these processes. So, alternatively of telling me how much it costs, I would say that possibly the most crucial issue is who pays for it.

The usage of cash is essential and crucial, especially for tiny local traders, but besides for the least-favoured consumers, due to the fact that they besides do not have access to sophisticated credit cards that let them to receive benefits in the form of cash back, air miles, etc. There is an economical imbalance between those who pay cash, who are little privileged in advance, and those who pay with a card. And unfortunately, there is besides a money transfer from cash users to card users. This is called “the inverted effect of Robin Hood”.

It follows that the bigger the players, the more they benefit from digitalisation, and the smaller the little it pays for them. Can we say that?

Yes, there is an interesting example from 2021 erstwhile Amazon announced a press release saying: from now on we will not accept Visa cards due to the fact that they cost besides much. It was a slight shock, but negotiations were rapidly held between Visa and Amazon and a minute later Amazon announced that, however, don't worry, we are taking the Visa card back. Only what is actual for Amazon is not actual for everyone. There is simply a difference between large and tiny players.

But possibly it is even more crucial that cash at least allows competition. We see that without cash we usage only digital means of payment. In many countries, at most 2 types are available. Often, however, we don't even have a choice due to the fact that there is 1 player who mostly dominates. In addition, it may seem to us that this does not make additional costs.

Meanwhile, this is never free due to the fact that the cost of the card is built into the price of the product. There is an component called "surcharging" in English that involves charging for the usage of payment appropriations. So, if you buy a product, any product, in the store, if you pay cash, you will be informed that it is 100 PLN, if you pay by card, you will be informed that it is 102. Only that very fewer countries do this today, mainly due to the fact that card systems are against it. Visa and MasterCard are very opposed to this. There are respective countries that do this – Australia and late Canada – but if the seller is incapable to exceed the price, prices are simply included in the price of the products. So if you pay cash, you give money to those who pay with a card, which is beautiful ridiculous. Another example: a week ago, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that he was suing Visa for unfair billing practices.

The subject of payment costs is complicated due to a gross deficiency of transparency. Whether we pay with a card or cash, we don't know how much it costs the seller. And it doesn't cost as much as a tiny seller as a large one. It doesn't cost the same in different countries. So right now, if we had more transparency, it would be a wonderful thing.

It would be much easier to make decisions at consumer level, knowing what this means. Do you know of any analyses or reports that say that digitalisation will involve, in particular, immense consumption of electricity, reasoning about actual costs and environmental footprints?

It's a real issue.

Last year the European Central Bank published a survey on the OEF of banknotes. More simply, the survey found that the environmental footprint of the banknotes is negligible, that it is the equivalent of driving 8 kilometres per individual and that it represents 0.01% of our Environmental Footprint, I believe.

So the environmental footprint of the cash is small. Interestingly, the manufacture is presently taking a number of steps to reduce this footprint, in peculiar by recycling banknotes at the end of their life cycle, creating banknotes with longer lifespan and utilizing materials with little environmental impact.

I think we truly request to think about how we can make a monetary strategy – peculiarly cash, but not only – which will be more environmentally friendly. There have been many investigation and press releases on digital payments, in peculiar on the dramatically unsustainable footprint of cryptocurrency. But cryptocurrency is inactive seldom utilized as a payment instrument or are barely always utilized as a payment instrument.

A dramatic environmental footprint of cryptocurrency, which is?

Yes, it is said that bitcoin itself is the equivalent of the country's average environmental footprint, despite the fact that it is utilized very little. However, I believe that there is simply a false debate about electronic payments, due to the fact that making payments, utilizing a card to pay in a retail store is likely to have small environmental impact. But apart from utilizing the card itself, there is besides a full marketing that aims to encourage people to usage this or another card.

In the past, 1 of the most common bonuses, and inactive so, was the distribution of air miles. Credit card users are rewarded with free air tickets. If it's a carbon footprint, it's a bad solution.

As I mentioned earlier, Visa was sponsor of the last planet Cup in Qatar. Watching football in air-conditioned stadiums in the mediate of the desert is besides not the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

All this to say that cash has a low carbon footprint for the environment and many efforts are being made to improve it. I don't think much investigation has been done on whether or not I usage cash, I have a more liable approach to the environment than erstwhile I usage a card. To my knowledge, there is no investigation on this. However, there are any suggestions. For example, we know that cash encourages better budgetary governance. There are studies that show that erstwhile we pay in cash, we buy little crap, forgive the term, for which we buy better quality products, eat better quality and buy little unnecessary things. I think it would be worth exploring.

Of course. erstwhile we have physical cash in hand, we have a different sense of spending. I don't know if there's been any investigation on this, but it seems beautiful obvious.

Many sociological and marketing investigation shows that "pain to pay" – from English "payment pain" – varies according to the method of payment.

When we pay cash, we physically separate from the money we worked hard for. In turn in the case of digital payments, everything is done to make them invisible.

For close-up payments no longer needs a code. In the planet of payments, we are now talking about invisibility of payments. In another words, we do not pay at all, for example, we order Uber, we do not pay due to the fact that the transaction takes place in the back of the strategy in an invisible way, without effort. We just order and we're done.

That's a very interesting subject. We are not talking about this in public, but this must have a major impact on spending habits, budget management and so on. You're saying there's been a survey on this?

There are studies conducted by sociologists and marketing experts, but this is besides very present in the promotion of card systems. They tell their customers, their bank customers: erstwhile people have credit cards, they spend more. And that's a fact. They spend more.

A subject worth exploring. Returning to the current situation where it seems that there is simply a political will to dispose of cash, what advice would you give to Polish citizens who want to defend cash payments?

Excellent question. I'll make it clear, but the first thing to do in defence of cash is to usage it. Not necessarily for everything, but I think it's crucial to usage the cash as much as possible for the transaction. People can say, I'm not worried about my individual life, I'm not worried about financial integration.

But erstwhile we go to the store and pay in cash, we let those who endure from exclusion, those who gotta defend their privacy, to warrant these rights.

Secondly, this debate must take place in the public arena. In many countries, legal changes have been introduced in a way, I would not say hidden, but in any case without any real debate. I will follow the example of France, due to the fact that unfortunately France was the first country, as far as I know, which introduced the ceilings for cash payments.

What is the current ceiling in France?

It is presently EUR 1000 in France. This is EUR 1000 for French taxation residents and EUR 10,000 for non-residents. It's truly weird due to the fact that how do you prove you're a nonresident? You can prove you're a resident. It's hard to prove you're not.

I didn't know the ceiling was so small... Has this limit been introduced recently?

The ceiling was EUR 3000 and following the 2015 attacks, the government adopted extraordinary anti-terrorist laws, in which the limit was reduced from EUR 3000 to EUR 1000.

This means that a number of emergency measures have been taken by law to defend against terrorism. but as mentioned earlier, the terrorists who attacked France in 2015 did not usage cash, but anonymous payment cards.

This was so added to the changes in the law, which were not debated besides much, due to the fact that they were made in a large hurry, in a crisis situation. So, I think we request to look out for any things, we request to monitor the political decisions taken. In particular, we request to defend access to cash. This besides means looking at the closure of bank and ATM branches. This means ensuring that cash is inactive accepted by all. We think of retailers, but in France the first institutions that refuse to accept cash are frequently state institutions, taxation institutions, etc.

I besides think we request to pay attention to authoritative communications. Again, we are not opposed to digitalisation or to the planet of banking, but I believe that the function of the state should not be to advance digital payments or the digitisation of finance.

So in defence of cash, let us usage it as much as we can and request a public debate to avoid making these decisions in haste and without our knowledge. I would like to ask about the general situation in Europe. Are there data on which countries usage cash most frequently compared to those in which it is already very, very limited?

Yes, there is simply a survey conducted by the European Central Bank, commonly known as Space⁴[4] which analyses consumer behaviour over time. On this basis the full analysis was carried out and the latest survey is based on data from 2022. The survey so includes the Covid effect, during which people paid little cash for many reasons.

At the same time, as you mentioned, the request for cash then increased. If I am correct, in Poland during the pandemic there was 1 3rd more cash in circulation, even though people were asked to usage it little frequently.

In the euro area, in 2022 59% of the sales points transactions were accounted for in cash, making it the most commonly utilized tender.

Malta, Slovenia and Austria are the countries with the highest cash usage with over 70% of cash payments. Luxembourg, Netherlands and Finland are the least cash beneficiary countries, with little than 40% of cash transactions.

Countries that usage the least cash are Scandinavian countries. Norway and Sweden were not included in the Space study, but we already know that. It's a historical matter. They have many factors. These are tiny countries, very homogeneous. In addition, all citizen has a bank account, everyone is curious in innovation. So there are Scandinavian countries, and the second player is the Netherlands. It shares with the Nordic countries the fact that it is simply a tiny country, with a highly concentrated banking world, a population that is, as I say, homogenous, homogenous in terms of standard of living.

In all these countries today, governments and central banks want to work to warrant future access to cash in the form of legislation, in the form of incentives, but they realise that this is difficult. Therefore, we must be careful not to lead to specified situations inadvertently. In the Netherlands, government is presently being prepared to guarantee that banks are not only obliged to accept cash but will besides have adequate facilities to handle it.

So we have a situation where the government of a given country abruptly wakes up and says: there is almost no cash in circulation, so we gotta warrant that it exists. Is that right?

Yes, in the case of Sweden, which is most likely the country in which cash is utilized the least, it is difficult, any citizens never usage cash. abruptly you gotta go back. Interestingly, Sweden was 1 of the first countries I know that a fewer years ago the central bank president raised an alarm, saying: attention, in the case of cyber attacks or war, our payment strategy is fragile. He encouraged people to keep cash at home, even in the event of a conflict. These are countries with low levels of cash use. Traditionally, countries in confederate Europe usage more cash. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and Germany are rather akin from 62% to 69% of cash settlement transactions.

However, we would gotta look at each country individually. For example, I think there is 1 origin that we are not looking very closely at, and that is consumer behaviour. I know Greece a little. I think that in Greece people don't go to the supermarket erstwhile a week, but they visit tiny shops more often, eat more on the city, etc. I think there are more low-value transactions there, which encourages the usage of cash. However, this is my individual intuition and there are not much technological data on this subject. There are Germans, too. The Germans are alternatively unusual. due to the fact that Germany is inactive a country that frequently uses cash. economical reasons are spoken of, possibly the memory of hyperinflation after the war is inactive part of a common culture. Both Germany and Austria are in this situation.

Poland, Baltic countries... more or little cash?

Baltic countries are countries that have changed their behaviour rather quickly. This may besides be due to the strong presence of Nordic banks in the Baltic States.

The UK is 1 of the countries that saw a sharp decline in cash use, mainly due to the fact that it is 1 of the countries where branches of banks and ATMs have been closed to the top extent. The government is presently in the process of taking action, as in the Nordic countries or the Netherlands, to warrant access to cash in the future. France is in an intermediate position, where the usage of species remains around the European average. Like everywhere, 1 of the areas of concern in France is the accelerated closure of branches and ATMs. Access to cash is an crucial issue.

So there are countries that are trying to keep cash payments, even though there are less and less in the overall context. From a European, or possibly even global, point of view, which players are now putting force on digitalisation? due to the fact that I realize that these are not necessarily national governments..

First of all, I'd say it's all digital players. GAFAM [5], BATX [6] in China, have a clear interest not only in making more and more things happen not only in the digital planet but above all in their own platform. In particular, Facebook, which announced the launch of its own digital currency a fewer years ago, has terrified all governments and central banks in the world. Facebook claimed that it was aimed at the welfare of the population, that it would be something wonderful, etc. It's apparent that if we have Facebook currency, we have Facebook currency, we have Facebook marketplace squares, we spend more and more time on Facebook, and then you leave more and more money on Facebook. The same can be said of Amazon or any another platform.

The thought of having a currency linked to its own network, its own market, is the dream of all digital players. This has already been achieved in China thanks to Alipay on the 1 hand and WeChat Pay on the other.

Chinese large platforms, akin to Facebook? Is that something?

Yes, but each has its own integrated means of payment. You go on the platform, you decide you want to order lunch, you usage their currency, you shop, you usage their payment method. We're talking super app. Elon Musk expressed his desire to do something like this erstwhile he bought Twitter, but I guess he let it go for now. Digital players have an organization called Better Than Cash Alliance [7]. It is worth reading about. It is funded by all digital players and explains that the digital planet is simply a better place. Basically, it's paradise. But one more time – we have this conversation through digital technology, so we are mostly not hostile to it.

That's right.

Digital technology allows many things. It allows us, among another things, to communicate for free. But digitalisation besides imposes fresh barriers and fresh forms of exclusion.

It besides threatens many crucial values, specified as privacy. Apart from Bigtech players, of course, there are governments that hope to be able to track all transactions.

Like China?

Yeah, like China. But unfortunately, this is not just about more authoritarian regimes. There are completely democratic countries, specified as France, where I talked about limiting the limit of cash payments to EUR 1000. I don't think it makes any sense. due to the fact that if you're a criminal, you won't say to yourself, well, I won't commit a crime due to the fact that I commit a crime by paying in cash. However, this is an obstacle for average citizens.

In Italy, this thought was abandoned a fewer years ago. Italy erstwhile launched an full program called Digital Italia. The government has allocated a crucial budget to encourage people to pay digitally. erstwhile again, I think it is ridiculous that in times of economical difficulties, debts and deficits worldwide, we are giving money to banks and payment institutions. It seems ridiculous to me.

There are also, of course, authorities, police and another supervisory authorities that have an interest in making transactions leave traces. Having experienced terrorist attacks in Paris a fewer years ago, no 1 will say that this is not a good thing. However, we must find the right balance between preserving fundamental values, social values specified as privacy, civilian liberties and the request to identify and track. Moreover, this is rather paradoxical, given all the abuses we see on social networks in the form of anonymity that digital technology allows.

Digital technology allows and even encourages abuse.

Yes, so it's paradoxical to say that we're going to usage the same tracking tools.

Recently in Poland, a teenager committed suicide as a consequence of harassment on social networks. So we know this problem very well.
It is time to come to the conclusion, although the subject is extended and fascinating, and I hope that we can talk about it on another occasions. Is there any crucial question that you have not been asked and that you would like to answer?

There is 1 issue that, in my opinion, does not pay besides much attention, namely whether 1 can imagine a society without money.

I have talked to many people about this, especially anthropologists, who have asked themselves: are there societies in past or in the planet present that work without money? The answer of anthropologists is – almost none, including even the most isolated societies, somewhere in the Amazon or Papuasia. At least they have any form of money to exchange with the outside world. Not necessarily within their own communities, which are frequently tiny but to trade with another communities, have forms of money.

Economists tend to claim that there has never been a barter society, that in reality there has always been any physical form of money, whether it is shells, salt, oil, animals or cigarettes. erstwhile in Australia, rum bottles were utilized as a monetary reference. However, the question appears again today. With our technology and artificial intelligence, do we inactive request money? I don't know.

Maybe you have an intuitive answer.

Yuval Noah Harari wrote in “Sapiens”: “The money is so a strategy of common trust, and not just any: money is the most universal and most effective strategy of common trust always invented.”

Money is so a origin of social cohesion. Money is simply a social link long before and beyond celebrated social networks.

We know those pictures from the planet War II movies or American films in which prisoners exchange cigarettes. Now people smoke little and less, and smoking is besides banned in prisons, so it seems that especially in American prisons cigarettes have replaced instant noodles and Asian ramen soups. They have all the features of the currency due to the fact that they can be stored, they have standard value, they are easy to transfer, etc. So we see that even in communities specified as prisons, where people are deprived of liberty, we spontaneously reproduce forms of money. So I turn to the opinion that yes, physical money is of large social importance and is important. However, I would be curious if individual could answer more fully.

We could deduce from this how to recreate the form of physical money if cash payments were to vanish – but I hope, in the light of all the above arguments, that this will not happen. Thank you for this very clear and interesting presentation, which motivates us to proceed our efforts to defend cash in Poland.

Footnotes:

[1] Cash Essentials Beyond Payments

[2] The financial inclusion is the cornerstone of improvement and since 2011 the database Global Findex planet Bank is the eventual origin of data on global access to financial services, from payments to savings and loans. The 2021 edition, based on nationally typical surveys conducted among around 128,000 adults in 123 economies during the COVID-19 pandemic, includes updated access and usage rates for formal and informal financial services and digital payments, as well as offering insights into behaviour promoting financial resilience. Data besides identify gaps in access to and usage of financial services by mediocre women and adults.

[3] Panama Papers mention to a leak of over 11.5 million confidential papers from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca with detailed information on more than 214 000 offshore companies utilized to avoid taxation or money laundering and the names of the shareholders of these companies. Among them are politicians, billionaires, leading athletes and celebrities. Heads of State or Government of 7 countries (Saudi Arabia, Argentina, United arabian Emirates, Iceland, Pakistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom) papers provided by an anonymous signaler date from the 1970s until the end of 2015.

[4] Examination of consumer payment attitudes in the European Union

[5] GAFAM is an acronym for online giants – Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft – which are the 5 major American companies dominant in the digital market. This acronym corresponds to the first GAFA to which the letter M meaning Microsoft is added. They are besides known as the large 5 or the Five; the expression large Tech is most commonly utilized in English.

[6] BATX is an acronym created after GAFAM by compiling the initials of 4 Chinese online companies in 2010: Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent and Xiaomi.

[7] Better Than Cash Alliance United Nations-based is simply a partnership of governments, companies and global organisations, which, according to a mission on the website, "accelerates the transition from cash to liable digital payments to accomplish the Sustainable improvement Goals". The members are 18 governments, mainly African countries. On the another hand, the remaining 80 members are large corporations specified as Coca-Cola and Unilever, non-governmental organizations financed by corporations, and sponsors include Foundations specified as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, and Mastercard Foundation.