Digital Euro’s Last Stand: Can It Still Compete in 2025?

The ECB’s pet project races against time—and crypto’s relentless momentum.

Why now? After years of bureaucratic foot-dragging, the digital euro finally has a prototype. But with Bitcoin ETFs gobbling up institutional cash and stablecoins dominating payments, is there room for a central bank digital relic?

The compliance trap: Built-in spending limits and transaction monitoring might please regulators, but they’re kryptonite for actual adoption. Meanwhile, Tether just processed another $50B—no questions asked.

Brussels’ Hail Mary: Expect a desperate marketing blitz positioning the digital euro as ’the ethical alternative’ to crypto. Cue eye-rolls from anyone who’s seen a government IT project miss deadlines.

Bottom line: If the eurozone wanted a relevant CBDC, they should’ve launched it before crypto ate their lunch. Now they’re stuck playing catch-up—with all the agility of a bureaucracy voting on emoji choices.

Digital Euro Is ‘Complement to Cash, Not a Replacement’

,, also shared his perspective with Cryptonews. He said concerns about privacy around the digital euro, a type of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), may be overstated:

The EU economy is regulated and already highly transparent. Financial institutions have operated within a well-regulated environment for a very long time, and for the overwhelming majority of them, regulations are synonymous with security, guarantees, and reduced fraud risk. […] Given these points, we believe it WOULD be inaccurate to characterize reluctance toward CBDCs as a widespread phenomenon.

Belis emphasized that CBDC is not meant to replace cash but to provide an alternative:

Privacy is undoubtedly important in general. However, the key feature of CBDCs lies in the technology that enables low costs, high speed, and robust security. […] CBDCs are not mandatory but rather an alternative option to existing payment methods.

He also noted that stablecoins and the digital euro aren’t designed to serve the same function, describing the CBDC as “a complement to cash, not a replacement.” Additionally, it could be seen as a tool for European integration, helping build a unified digital payment infrastructure across the eurozone.

Belis noted a key advantage of the CBDC over private entity:

MiCA-compliant stablecoins, even with their improved regulatory safeguards, ultimately represent a claim on a private entity. This creates a fundamentally different risk profile from central bank money, which is a direct liability of the central bank itself. […] When a transaction settles in central bank money (whether physical cash or a digital euro), the settlement is absolute with no counterparty risk.

He also pointed out some of the key problems a digital euro could address, calling them “low transaction speed, higher transaction costs, and fragmentation of the financial landscape.”

When it comes to the timeline, Belis warned against expecting quick results:

While the technological infrastructure is largely ready for CBDC adoption, financial systems cannot—and should not—transform instantaneously. […] Based on current trajectories, full implementation could realistically span several years.

‘Usage of Existing Stablecoins Would Be Better Than CBDCs’

,, told Cryptonews that privacy will be a crucial issue for the CBDC:

It would be discouraging if everyone knew where all your payments are going. There are projects building out CBDCs that try to make certain aspects private. This seems to be possible with comprehensive ZK proofs.

In his view, existing stablecoins might actually be a better option:

Usage of existing stablecoins would be better than CBDCs. Allowing multiple issuers would be even better because it would make businesses compete for better offerings. Many stablecoins already have blacklists therefore if an illicit actor receives money it can be blocked.

Laimite added that the success of the digital euro will depend on how it’s implemented:

If digital euro would be fully on chain then it would bring transparency in government spending. As well as on how much money is in circulation and activity of people. This would better predict a crisis and would therefore stabilize the current financial system. We would also cut lots of costs in the banking sector.

He also pointed to potential risks for traditional banks:

Banks make lots of money from people’s deposits. If people start holding their own assets this is not possible. However banks could release their own stablecoins to gather the interest. Many payments would be possible without bank fees. I think that there would be space for KYC, lending, payment processing (POS terminals), currency exchange and others.

As for timing, Laimite offered a realistic estimate:

I think broader adoption for technology would come till 2030. Start using it probably in 2027.

The introduction of the euro CBDC is met with both Optimism and skepticism across the industry. On the one hand, the new currency could increase transparency, lower costs, and speed up payments. On the other hand, questions remain around privacy, competition with existing stablecoins, and its potential impact on the banking system.

Even with all the debate, experts agree that launching will take time and won’t be easy. It’ll need a flexible approach.

At the same time, Znotins believes Latvia’s proactive policies could serve as a model for countries looking to foster innovation while maintaining oversight:

Key advantages include the ability to pay share capital and taxes in crypto, a streamlined MiCA licensing process, and the lowest supervision fees in the EU. These forward-looking policies position Latvia as a top destination for Web3 innovation – combining regulatory clarity, agility, and cost-efficiency at the heart of the European Union.