In the ongoing discourse surrounding central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), the spotlight is increasingly focused on the risks they entail. Despite growing concerns, policymakers are exploring avenues to alleviate apprehensions, with some turning to open-source coding as a potential solution to enhance transparency and foster public trust. However, it's essential to recognize that while transparency is valuable, it's not a cure-all remedy.

Open-source coding, a familiar concept in the realm of cryptocurrency, involves publicly sharing the underlying code of a project rather than keeping it under wraps as proprietary information. For example, Bitcoin's code is freely accessible for scrutiny by anyone interested.

The benefits of open-sourcing a project are manifold. External audits become feasible, potentially uncovering vulnerabilities or hidden agendas embedded within the code that may have eluded the original developers' scrutiny. However, open-source coding isn't without its pitfalls, as demonstrated by Brazil's experience last year when scrutiny of its CBDC pilot revealed surveillance and control mechanisms covertly integrated into the code.

The dilemma extends beyond mere transparency. While open-source initiatives offer insights into how systems operate, they don't inherently empower citizens to effect change, particularly in the context of CBDCs. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies, where users can fork the chain or opt out, CBDC users have limited recourse in challenging centralized authority.

Moreover, the dynamic nature of open-source projects adds another layer of complexity. The case of Norway illustrates how what is open source today may not remain so tomorrow, subject to the whims of centralized entities like national governments. Even in the United States, where openness is ostensibly embraced, initiatives like "Project Hamilton," which aimed to develop an open-source CBDC model, don't bind the Federal Reserve to any specific course of action.

These examples underscore the nascent stage of CBDC development and the multifaceted challenges they pose. While policymakers deserve credit for embracing transparency, it's crucial not to misconstrue it as a panacea. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies, CBDCs risk consolidating power in the hands of governments, potentially granting them unprecedented control over citizens' economic autonomy.

In essence, while open-source technology has been pivotal in shaping cryptocurrency narratives, it's imperative to recognize that CBDCs present a unique set of challenges that transparency alone cannot resolve. The underlying issue transcends central bank opacity and delves into fundamental questions of governance and individual freedoms.