Case Studies - Successful CBDC Pilots

INDIA E-RUPEE PROFILE

STATUS: Pilot (retail and wholesale)
TIMELINE: Retail pilot since December 2022
SCALE:
├── ₹10.16 billion in circulation (March 2025)
├── ~$122 million USD
├── 334% YoY growth
├── 13 participating banks
└── ~5 million users estimated

WHAT MAKES IT NOTABLE:
├── Second largest retail CBDC pilot
├── Parallel wholesale track
├── Building on UPI success
├── Emerging market context
└── Deliberate, measured approach
```

E-RUPEE SUCCESS FACTORS

FACTOR 1: UPI FOUNDATION
├── What they did:
│ ├── Integrated e-Rupee with UPI rails
│ ├── Same QR code infrastructure
│ ├── Familiar user experience
│ └── Bank-centric distribution
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── UPI already has massive adoption
│ ├── No need to build new network
│ ├── Users already trained
│ └── Merchant network exists
└── Lesson: Build on existing success

FACTOR 2: BANK-LED DISTRIBUTION
├── What they did:
│ ├── Banks distribute wallets
│ ├── Banks handle customer service
│ ├── Banks maintain relationship
│ └── RBI provides infrastructure
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Banks have customer access
│ ├── Addresses disintermediation concern
│ ├── Existing trust relationships
│ └── Scalable distribution
└── Lesson: Two-tier model with genuine bank role

FACTOR 3: MEASURED EXPECTATIONS
├── What they did:
│ ├── Called it "pilot" honestly
│ ├── Limited geographic scope initially
│ ├── Modest adoption targets
│ ├── Acknowledged learning curve
│ └── No premature "victory" claims
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Reduced pressure for quick results
│ ├── Allowed genuine experimentation
│ ├── Built credibility through honesty
│ └── Room to iterate
└── Lesson: Set realistic expectations

FACTOR 4: INCREMENTAL FEATURE ADDITION
├── What they did:
│ ├── Basic transfers first
│ ├── Offline payments added later
│ ├── Programmability on roadmap
│ └── Interest potential explored
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Reduced initial complexity
│ ├── Clear development path
│ ├── Features tested before scaling
│ └── User feedback incorporated
└── Lesson: Start simple, add features
```

E-RUPEE LIMITATIONS

The UPI question:
├── UPI already works extremely well
├── 10+ billion transactions monthly
├── Why do users need e-Rupee?
├── Value proposition unclear
└── May be solving non-problem

Scale still modest:
├── $122M vs. UPI's billions monthly
├── ~5M users vs. 300M+ UPI users
├── Growth rate high but from small base
└── Long way to meaningful scale

Use case validation:
├── What does e-Rupee do better than UPI?
├── Offline payments (somewhat)
├── Central bank money (conceptual)
├── Not clear users care about distinction
└── Value proposition still seeking

Bank enthusiasm variable:
├── Banks participating as required
├── Unclear how actively promoting
├── Passive compliance vs. active adoption
└── Distribution effectiveness uncertain

HONEST ASSESSMENT:
e-Rupee benefits from India's extraordinary
digital payments infrastructure. But it also faces
the challenge that UPI works so well that CBDC
may be unnecessary. The case for e-Rupee remains
"central bank money" conceptual rather than
demonstrated practical value over UPI.
```

---

SWEDEN E-KRONA PROFILE

STATUS: Research/pilot exploration
TIMELINE: Research since 2017, multiple pilots
SCALE:
├── Technical pilots completed
├── Not launched to public
├── Policy research ongoing
└── No decision to proceed yet

WHAT MAKES IT NOTABLE:
├── Longest research process
├── Most transparent documentation
├── Clear problem definition (declining cash)
├── Democratic governance example
└── Willing to conclude "maybe not"
```

E-KRONA SUCCESS FACTORS

FACTOR 1: CLEAR PROBLEM DEFINITION
├── What they did:
│ ├── Documented cash usage decline (< 10%)
│ ├── Identified access-to-central-bank-money concern
│ ├── Quantified the problem
│ └── Honest about uncertainty
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Justified investigation
│ ├── Defined success criteria
│ ├── Focused research agenda
│ └── Built legitimacy
└── Lesson: Define problem before solution

FACTOR 2: RESEARCH-FIRST APPROACH
├── What they did:
│ ├── 2017-2019: Feasibility study
│ ├── 2020-2022: Technical pilot
│ ├── 2023+: Policy analysis
│ ├── Published all findings
│ └── Invited public input
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Thorough understanding
│ ├── Credibility built
│ ├── No wasted implementation
│ └── Informed decision-making
└── Lesson: Research before building

FACTOR 3: TRANSPARENT DOCUMENTATION
├── What they did:
│ ├── Published all reports
│ ├── Detailed technical findings
│ ├── Acknowledged uncertainties
│ └── Invited academic review
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Public trust maintained
│ ├── Expert input gathered
│ ├── Democratic legitimacy
│ └── Replicable methodology
└── Lesson: Transparency builds trust

FACTOR 4: WILLINGNESS TO WAIT
├── What they did:
│ ├── 7+ years without launch
│ ├── Resisted pressure to announce
│ ├── Let analysis determine timing
│ └── Didn't chase headlines
├── Why it worked:
│ ├── Avoided premature commitment
│ ├── Learned from others' mistakes
│ ├── Better-informed decision
│ └── Credibility preserved
└── Lesson: Patience is valuable
```

E-KRONA LIMITATIONS

No actual adoption to measure:
├── Research pilots aren't usage
├── Can't validate adoption hypotheses
├── Real behavior unknown
└── Success criteria not tested

May never launch:
├── Still no decision to proceed
├── ECB Digital Euro may obviate need
├── Political uncertainty
└── "Success" might be not launching

Swedish context unique:
├── 8% cash usage (extremely low globally)
├── Strong existing digital infrastructure
├── High institutional trust
├── Small, homogeneous population
└── May not generalize

HONEST ASSESSMENT:
e-Krona's "success" is really methodological—
showing how to research CBDC properly rather than
how to launch one. Sweden may conclude CBDC isn't
needed, which would be a successful outcome of
good process, but not a CBDC implementation success.
```

---

CROSS-CASE SUCCESS PATTERNS

PATTERN 1: PATIENCE
├── e-CNY: Testing since 2020, no rush to "launch"
├── e-Rupee: "Pilot" framing, measured expectations
├── e-Krona: 7+ years research without launch
└── LESSON: Multi-year commitment is prerequisite

PATTERN 2: CLEAR PROBLEM
├── e-CNY: (Government control motivation, less clear)
├── e-Rupee: (Building on UPI less clear)
├── e-Krona: Cash decline clearly documented
└── LESSON: Defined problem guides better process

PATTERN 3: STAKEHOLDER ALIGNMENT
├── e-CNY: State mandate (different context)
├── e-Rupee: Banks as distributors
├── e-Krona: Public consultation
└── LESSON: Can't succeed against stakeholders

PATTERN 4: BUILD ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
├── e-CNY: Alipay/WeChat integration
├── e-Rupee: UPI rails
├── e-Krona: Swedish digital identity
└── LESSON: Leverage what exists, don't replace

PATTERN 5: INCREMENTAL APPROACH
├── e-CNY: Regional expansion over years
├── e-Rupee: Feature addition over time
├── e-Krona: Phased research
└── LESSON: Don't try everything at once

SUCCESS FACTOR SCORECARD:

│ e-CNY │ e-Rupee │ e-Krona
────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────
Clear problem │ Medium │ Low │ High
Stakeholder align. │ High* │ Medium │ Medium
Existing infra. │ High │ High │ Medium
Patience │ High │ High │ High
Transparency │ Low │ Medium │ High
Adoption success │ ? │ ? │ N/A

• By mandate, not persuasion

KEY INSIGHT:
No case study demonstrates sustainable, organic,
voluntary retail CBDC adoption at meaningful scale.
"Success" is relative and often overstated.

---

Create a success factor scorecard analyzing 3 CBDC pilots/implementations, rating each on key success factors and extracting lessons applicable to a hypothetical new implementation.

Time investment: 2-3 hours

---