Dalio Warns CBDCs Give Governments Unprecedented Financial Control

Ray Dalio’s core critique of CBDCs centers on the sweeping power they would grant to governments. Speaking with Tucker Carlson, the Bridgewater Associates founder emphasized that a fully implemented CBDC system would mean “all the transactions will be known,” providing authorities with complete visibility into financial activity. Dalio described CBDCs as a “very effective controlling mechanism by the government,” extending far beyond simple transparency for combating illegal activities.

This control, Dalio warned, could manifest in automated policy enforcement. He specified that CBDCs could allow governments to automatically levy taxes, apply foreign exchange controls, enforce sanctions, and even restrict financial access for politically disfavored groups. This perspective finds an echo in parts of the blockchain industry. Harry Halpin, CEO of privacy-focused Nym Technologies, noted that the core infrastructure for such monitoring largely already exists within the banking system. “Digital technology is already used by central banks like the Fed to monitor relationships with commercial banks,” Halpin told Decrypt. “It’s a very small step to extend that visibility to individual accounts through a CBDC.”

Despite their potential as a control tool, Dalio played down the long-term investment appeal of CBDCs for individuals. He argued they are unlikely to become “that big of a deal” as a vehicle for holding wealth. The critical flaw, according to Dalio, is the likelihood that CBDCs would not offer interest, leading to depreciation in value over time. “There will be a debate; probably they won’t be [offering interest], then they’re not an effective vehicle to hold because you’ll have depreciation,” he stated.

In this context, Dalio positioned traditional financial instruments as superior alternatives. “You’d rather hold in a money market fund or a bond,” he advised, directly contrasting the potential stagnation of a non-interest-bearing CBDC with the yield-generating capacity of these established assets. This skepticism highlights a potential adoption hurdle: if CBDCs function merely as digital cash without competitive returns, they may fail to attract significant holdings beyond what is necessary for transactional purposes.

The debate is not theoretical. According to the Atlantic Council, more than 130 countries or currency unions are exploring CBDCs, with 72 in advanced phases of development. Three nations—the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Nigeria—have formally launched digital currencies, while 49 jurisdictions, including a major pilot program in China, are running tests. This global momentum underscores the urgency of the discussions Dalio has amplified.

This centralized model stands in direct opposition to the philosophy underpinning decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Halpin explicitly contrasted the two, stating that CBDCs represent “the opposite” of the system envisioned by Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin’s architecture is designed to limit the ability of any single authority to monitor or restrict transactions. Interestingly, Dalio himself has softened his stance on Bitcoin in recent years, acknowledging it as a potential portfolio diversifier and alternative form of money. He has disclosed holding a small allocation and, at times, expressed a preference for Bitcoin and gold over traditional debt instruments like bonds, viewing them as hedges against systemic risks that CBDCs could potentially exacerbate.

As dozens of countries advance their CBDC pilots, the tension between the efficiency and control offered by state-backed digital currencies and the privacy and decentralization championed by the crypto industry is coming into sharp focus. Dalio’s analysis frames the coming evolution not just as a technological shift, but as a fundamental choice about the balance of power between citizens and the state within the financial system.