“LET’S GET SMART 2”: Who controls the future of money?

Bitcoin was created to challenge the traditional financial system. Now banks, governments and central banks are exploring the same technology. So what is changing, and who will control the financial system of tomorrow?

In Part 1 of Let’s Get Smart we looked at how technology is quietly changing the financial system — from the way we pay for things to how money moves between businesses, banks and investors.

But there’s a bigger story underneath.

Bitcoin was created to challenge the traditional financial system by allowing people to transfer value without relying on a bank or central authority.

Today, those same underlying technologies are being explored by banks, governments and central banks.

Why? And what does that mean for the future of money?

You will hear plenty of new terms when people talk about the future of finance. They can sound complicated, but the concepts are easier to follow once you break them down.

Imagine a notebook that records who owns what and every time something changes hands.

Normally, one organisation — such as a bank — keeps the official record. If you transfer money, the bank updates its records to show where that money has gone.

Blockchain takes a different approach.

Instead of one organisation holding the master record, copies of the same digital record are shared across a network of computers. When a new transaction takes place, the network checks it against agreed rules before adding it to the record.

Think of it like a group of people all keeping identical copies of the same notebook. When a new entry is agreed upon, everyone updates their copy. If someone tries to secretly change an earlier entry, the other copies provide a way to identify the discrepancy.

The records are also linked together in a sequence, making earlier entries extremely difficult to alter without the network detecting it.

Bitcoin is a good example of how this works. Bitcoin is a digital currency, while blockchain is the technology that records and verifies transactions made using it. Think of blockchain as the underlying record-keeping system, and Bitcoin as one of the things that system makes possible.

But blockchain isn’t limited to cryptocurrency. It can also be used to record ownership, transfer financial assets and track transactions between businesses.

Why does this matter?

The potential is that financial transactions could become faster, simpler and more transparent.

Today, moving money or transferring ownership of an asset can involve several organisations, separate databases and multiple checks. Each step takes time and can add cost and complexity.

A shared digital record could allow some of those processes to happen in a more connected environment, with transactions verified and recorded as they occur.

That doesn’t mean every transaction will suddenly become instant or that banks and other intermediaries will disappear. But it does create the possibility of changing how financial assets are issued, transferred and settled.

And that’s where some of the bigger developments — including tokenisation, smart contracts and digital currencies — come into the picture.

This is one of the more interesting developments.

Tokenisation is the process of representing an asset or a right to an asset as a digital token on a blockchain or similar digital ledger.

Imagine a bond, which is essentially a way for an investor to lend money to a government or company in return for interest.

Instead of recording ownership and transfers through traditional systems, a tokenised version could represent that bond digitally. The token could then be transferred between eligible investors and the transaction recorded on the network.

The same concept could potentially apply to property interests, investment funds, private credit, carbon credits and other assets.

It doesn’t mean the underlying asset magically becomes more valuable. It changes how ownership and transactions can be recorded and managed.

A smart contract is computer code that carries out instructions when specified conditions are met.

For example, imagine a property transaction. A smart contract could be programmed so that ownership of a digital property interest transfers when the agreed payment is received.

Rather than relying on several separate steps and manual processes, parts of the transaction could happen automatically.

The code still needs to be designed correctly, and legal agreements and real-world verification remain important. But the potential is to make certain transactions faster and more efficient.

Unlike Bitcoin, whose price can move sharply, stablecoins are designed to maintain a relatively stable value, usually by being linked to a currency such as the US dollar.

For example, a US-dollar stablecoin aims to maintain a value of one US dollar per token.

They are being used and explored as a way to move money across digital networks, including for payments and the settlement of financial transactions.

But a stablecoin is not automatically the same as money held in a bank account. Its reliability depends on the issuer, the assets backing it, the arrangements for redemption and the regulatory protections in place.

A digital wallet is a tool used to access and manage digital assets.

But here’s something worth understanding: a wallet doesn’t necessarily hold the asset itself. It manages the credentials, including cryptographic keys, that allow someone to control or authorise transactions involving those assets.

This brings us to custody.

Custody is about who safeguards the assets and controls access to them. An investor might hold their own keys, or rely on an exchange or specialist custodian to manage them.

That distinction matters. If someone else controls the keys, the investor is relying on that organisation’s security, systems and governance.

These terms are connected, but they are not interchangeable. Understanding the difference is important when considering how digital assets are held and protected.

When Bitcoin was introduced in 2009, it proposed a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that could operate without relying on a central authority or traditional financial institution.

The network uses a distributed process to verify transactions, rather than asking a bank to maintain the definitive record.

That was the point.

But the technology has since attracted interest well beyond the cryptocurrency community.

Banks are exploring ways to use blockchain to record and transfer financial assets. Central banks are investigating digital forms of money. Governments are considering how digital assets should be regulated.

And this creates an interesting tension.

The original decentralised model was designed to reduce reliance on central authorities. The institutional model is often about using new technology to make the existing financial system more efficient, while retaining oversight, regulation and established responsibilities.

These are not necessarily competing technologies. They are different approaches to how the financial system could operate.

Consider the differences:

• Bitcoin: A decentralised digital currency operating on a network without a central bank controlling its supply or approving transactions.

• Central bank digital currency (CBDC): Digital money issued by a central bank. The central bank remains the issuer.

• Stablecoins: Privately issued digital tokens designed to maintain a value linked to a traditional currency.

• Tokenised bank deposits: Existing bank deposits represented in digital token form, with the bank remaining responsible for the deposit.

All involve digital money or digital records, but who issues them, who controls them and what protections apply can be very different.

This is why the conversation is about more than technology. It is also about trust, privacy, control and who gets to set the rules.

This isn’t just a discussion happening overseas.

In May 2026, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre released the findings of Project Acacia.

The project examined how tokenised assets and different forms of digital money could be used in Australia’s wholesale financial markets.

Industry participants developed and tested 20 use cases involving assets such as government and corporate bonds, investment funds, trade receivables and other financial instruments.

They explored different ways to settle transactions using existing central bank settlement balances, pilot wholesale central bank digital currency, tokenised bank deposits and stablecoins.

So what does that actually mean?

Imagine an investor buying a bond. Traditionally, the transfer of ownership and the movement of money can involve multiple institutions, systems and settlement steps.

With tokenisation, the asset and the payment could potentially be recorded and settled in a more connected digital environment. This could reduce processing time, improve efficiency and lower some of the risks associated with transactions not settling as expected.

Project Acacia demonstrated how these arrangements could work in a range of real and simulated transactions. It also identified legal, regulatory and coordination challenges that need to be addressed before tokenised markets can scale.

The RBA’s conclusion is particularly interesting: while private digital money such as stablecoins and tokenised bank deposits may play a role, central bank money is expected to remain foundational to the financial system.

In other words, the RBA isn’t simply watching the technology develop. It is actively exploring how Australia’s financial infrastructure might evolve around it.

There is an important distinction, though. Project Acacia focused on wholesale markets — transactions involving financial institutions and large market participants — not a proposal to replace the cash in everyday Australians’ wallets.

In September 2026, the RBA and Treasury reiterated that there was no clear public-interest case for introducing a retail CBDC in Australia at this stage.

For now, the focus is on modernising the financial infrastructure behind the scenes, rather than introducing a government-issued digital dollar for every Australian.

We are moving into a period where the way money and assets are recorded, transferred and settled could look quite different from what we have known.

But it is important not to confuse a new technology with a successful business.

A company might build the infrastructure, provide the software, manage the transactions, safeguard the assets or simply use someone else’s platform.

Those are very different business models, with different revenue opportunities and risks.

The bigger question is not simply whether blockchain, tokenisation or digital currencies will grow.

It is who will build the systems, who will use them, who will pay for them and who will ultimately control them.

And that is where the investment story starts to become interesting.

In Part 3 of Let’s Get Smart, we’ll look at the businesses operating across this emerging financial ecosystem, the services they provide and where the commercial opportunities may sit.