Countries not considering CBDC
Executive summary
Most countries are actively researching or piloting central bank digital currencies (CBDCs); multiple trackers counted more than 130 jurisdictions engaged as of 2023 and 2025—leaving relatively few that have formally decided not to pursue CBDCs at all [1] [2]. The clearest, repeatedly cited example of a country explicitly halting retail CBDC work is the United States after an executive order in January 2025; a handful of nations (for example, Ecuador and Senegal) have cancelled or paused programs after trials [3] [4] [1].
1. Global momentum — most countries are “considering” CBDCs
International data and trackers show CBDC work is the norm: surveys and open databases cited in reporting count well over 100 jurisdictions researching, piloting, or developing CBDCs [2] [1]. Think tanks and news outlets describe a landscape where engagement ranges from early research to full retail launches, meaning “not considering” is now the exception rather than the rule [2] [1].
2. The United States — the clearest public refusal
The most explicit national-level decision against retail CBDC work comes from the U.S. After an executive order in January 2025 the White House directed federal agencies to halt retail CBDC initiatives; multiple sources label the U.S. an outlier among peer central banks for that reason [3] [4] [5]. Congressional activity also reflects strong institutional debate and legislative attempts to prohibit or tightly constrain Fed-led CBDC action [6].
3. Countries that paused or cancelled projects after trials
Not every abandonment is ideological — several countries have stopped technical projects after pilots or found uptake low. Reporting highlights Ecuador and Senegal as cases that cancelled development work, and some accounts describe countries that “set aside” or paused projects after assessing limited benefits or low user adoption [1] [7]. These reversals demonstrate that refusal can follow real-world trial results, not just policy postures [7] [1].
4. “CBDC-free” lists vs. reality on the ground
Commercial and crypto-focused publications produce lists of “CBDC-free” zones or countries resisting CBDCs, but the underlying trackers used by mainstream analysts show engagement in most jurisdictions [8] [2]. Such lists can overstate resistance by conflating temporary pauses, low-priority research, or politically driven halts with a durable, legally binding refusal. Independent trackers and academic briefs give a more granular picture: engagement does not always mean imminent launch [2] [9].
5. Why some countries resist or stop — policy reasons cited
Sources show multiple motivations for halting or avoiding CBDCs: concerns about privacy, financial-stability risks, cyber vulnerabilities, low public uptake in pilots, and cost/benefit calculations [5] [10]. In some countries the decision reflects sufficient private-sector digital-payment infrastructure (for example, successful real-time payment rails) that makes a CBDC less urgent [9]. Reporting on abandoned efforts emphasizes operational and political rationales rather than uniform opposition to digital money [7] [1].
6. How to read the data — nuance and limitations
Public trackers categorize jurisdictions by research, pilot, or launch phase; being “engaged” can mean little more than a central bank discussion or a research paper [2]. Media summaries often compress this nuance; therefore, lists that claim many countries are “not considering” CBDCs should be treated skeptically unless tied to a formal executive, legislative, or central-bank declaration [2] [6]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, up-to-the-minute list of every country that has legally prohibited CBDCs.
7. Competing narratives and hidden agendas
Policy statements against CBDCs may reflect political agendas as much as technical judgment. The U.S. 2025 executive order coincided with partisan debates and legislative moves to restrict Fed activities — signaling political as well as policy motives [3] [6]. Conversely, commercial crypto outlets have incentives to amplify “CBDC-free” messaging to appeal to privacy-minded readers; their lists sometimes lack the nuance found in central-bank trackers [8] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
Hard refusals to consider CBDCs are rare; public, formal halts exist but are limited (the U.S. executive order and several countries that cancelled pilots are the best-documented examples) [3] [4] [1]. Most countries remain in some stage of exploration, so claims that entire regions are “CBDC-free” overstate the case unless supported by explicit, official bans or sustained policy reversals [2] [7].
Limitations: this analysis relies on trackers and news reports cited above; sources categorize engagement differently and do not list every jurisdiction’s formal legal position, so “not considering” can be ambiguous in many cases [2] [6].