Lucien proceeds to explain why he and Ross decided to write the article and what he believes it adds to an already large and growing body of literature on CBDC, as well as why it is problematic to looks at CBDC issuance primarily through the lens of monetary policy. As Lucien and Ross stress in their article: “States should collaborate with central banks and other diverse sources of expertise to ensure broad public engagement and participation in deciding whether there is an actual need for a CBDC, as well as its design,” to emphasize that CBDC may not always be recommended. They cite the experience of the Bank of Finland’s issuance of its Avant Smart Card (often dubbed the world’s ‘first CBDC’ – although no Distributed Ledger Technology or Blockchain Technology was used in its development) as a cautionary tale of the importance of clarity about the precise reasons for issuing a retail CBDC. “We ultimately argue that as CBDC issuance will have society-wide effects, decisions concerning a potential CBDC, including whether there is an actual need for one, should involve multiple agencies within government, and broad public engagement and participation. It should not be a process driven only by central banks and directed only through the lens of their monetary policy mandates,” they say. Lucien takes great care to distinguish between wholesale and retail CBDCs by saying: “The arguments for a wholesale CBDC are quite different, with wholesale CBDCs potentially offering substantial efficiency gains in cross-border trade transaction payments, and capital market transactions…This article focuses upon retail CBDCs – those designed for use by the general population, not major banks and corporations. Whereas a retail CBDC could be used by households and businesses to effect online transactions and transfers of funds to family and friends, a wholesale CBDC would only be accessible to a limited range of market participants, such as commercial banks, and would be used to effect wholesale payments and settlements.” Lucien and Ross’ analysis shows that although central banks serve the general public in performing their mandates, “their perceptions on the need for a CBDC may be restricted by the scope of their primary mandates, which are traditionally concerned with monetary policy and financial stability. This is problematic, as the grounds for and consequences of a CBDC issuance that fall outside this scope may not be fully considered.” The discussion concludes with Lucien articulating what policy positions he and his co-author advocate for.