You can't spoil the ruble with numbers: why Russia has postponed the introduction of a new form of money

Despite the success of the pilot project, which involved 15 significant Russian banks, the implementation of the digital ruble has been postponed. According to the roadmap of the Bank of Russia, it was assumed that systemically important banks would provide clients with operations with the digital ruble on July 1, 2025. But at the end of June, the Central Bank sent proposals to amend the law on the digital ruble to the State Duma with new implementation dates - from January 2026.

Despite the success of the pilot project, which involved 15 major Russian banks, the introduction of the digital ruble has been postponed. According to the roadmap of the Bank of Russia, it was assumed that systemically important banks would provide clients with transactions with the digital ruble on July 1, 2025. But at the end of June, the Central Bank sent proposals to amend the law on the digital ruble to the State Duma with new implementation dates - from January 2026. In response, the State Duma Committee on Financial Markets proposed postponing the implementation date by several more months and aligning the dates with the introduction of a single payment QR code. Now, according to the new updated plan, clients of the largest banks will be able to make transactions with the digital national currency only from September 1, 2026. From the same date, it will be possible to pay with the digital ruble in trade organizations whose revenue for the previous year exceeds 120 million rubles. Widespread implementation, both through any banks with a universal license and in any companies with revenues over 30 million rubles, is planned for another year later, in September 2027. And finally, by September 1, 2028, all banks and almost all enterprises will have to accept and service the digital ruble. Payment with the digital ruble will not actually differ from the current payment by QR code through the fast payment system.

How did it happen that an apparently successful project, which was going smoothly, had to be postponed? The Bank of Russia has two explanations for this. The first was given by Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Zulfiya Kakhrumanova - technical difficulties of some banks, related, in particular, to ensuring technological independence. And, most likely, this factor really affected the delay. Back in March, the results of a study were published, which showed that the infrastructure of a third of Russian banks is not ready to accept the digital ruble. The survey conducted by the researchers included 150 IT directors, enterprise architects, digital transformation managers and leading engineers and showed that most banks need to update their IT systems and prepare for scaling systems due to the growth of transactions and the number of requests in order to implement the digital ruble. Only every fifth bank, according to the survey, fully complied with the technical requirements for the deployment of the domestic digital form of money. In the commentary to the study, it was noted that there are problems with integrating the digital ruble with automated banking systems, as well as more general problems with integrating the software infrastructure of banks, since there is a need to integrate the digital ruble with mobile applications of clients, government systems and other modern information resources.

And although the issue of technological independence was not explicitly mentioned, it is obvious that it also affects the speed of changes in the infrastructure of banks. Although there are no problems with software import substitution to a large extent, there is still a certain deficit in the area of domestic hardware for data storage systems and security systems. Thus, technological independence is indeed one of the factors of the delay. But can it fully explain it? I think not. Delays in the implementation of IT solutions have been around for a long time, this problem is old and inevitable. This factor is included in any project during planning. Obviously, given the high level of maturity of the Bank of Russia's planning, this factor was taken into account.

The second official factor of the delay, voiced by the head of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation Elvira Nabiullina, is the need to “work out all the details in the pilot” and consult with banks about the most “attractive economic model for their clients.” Indeed, at the moment, it is difficult for the average client to see a direct benefit. Yes, storing the digital ruble in accounts with the Central Bank is, of course, more reliable than in a bank, which is subject to numerous risks. Money in the Central Bank will not disappear, as in an unexpectedly bankrupt bank. Digital ruble accounts have no maintenance cost, and transactions with it are extremely cheap. But the risk of storing money in a bank is offset by interest on deposits, which are quite high at the current key rate. Storing the digital ruble in this sense is similar to storing cash. At the current high key rate, the client conditionally loses 20% of the value of his money. And the use of such expensive tools for clients as payment cards is compensated by cashback and bonus programs, which are not currently planned for the digital ruble.

The digital ruble may be beneficial for retailers, as their transaction costs will fall somewhat. But, let's admit, today the difference between paying with a QR code and the proposed cost of paying with a digital ruble is quite insignificant and is unlikely to serve as a driver for most companies. Reducing transaction costs by 0.01% will only be beneficial for very large companies, among which only national marketplaces and the top five retailers come to mind.

Therefore, the question of how to interest the client in using the digital ruble is open. Even for banking professionals. In early July, on the sidelines of the Financial Congress in St. Petersburg, state banker German Gref said the following: “I do not yet see any prospects for introducing the digital ruble. As an individual, I do not understand why it is needed, and as a bank, neither. ... All our finances have long been digital. Everything that the digital ruble can provide is provided by non-cash payments. Our banks are more than technologically advanced, so I do not see a single new product that cannot be made using the regular ruble.”

And in these emotional words, one more factor of the implementation delay is seen. Namely: the limited benefits of the digital ruble for banks. Probably, banks may even see a threat to their business in connection with the introduction of the national digital currency. At the same Financial Congress, the head of the State Duma Committee on Financial Markets Anatoly Aksakov stated that with the advent of the digital ruble, traditional banks may simply disappear due to lack of need. True, immediately after his statement, the parliamentarian clarified that this assumption is a joke. But there is a grain of truth in every joke...

Today, banks around the world have three main functions: transactional (transfers, account replenishments, cashing out, electronic means of payment), trading in highly liquid assets (currency, precious metals, shares) and the main function - financial intermediation. Only a bank takes money at interest, on deposit, at interest and then issues loans from these funds at high interest rates. At the same time, increasing the amount of available funds in the economy in the form of non-cash money. Non-cash money, conditionally, becomes twice as much, since the bank has obligations to the client for the entire amount and the person who received the loan has money for the entire amount. Of course, the regulator requires the bank to leave reserves for risky events. And modern regulation of banks after all the crises of recent years is very strict, banks today do not just reserve 10% of assets for unforeseen circumstances, but must build a complex risk management system, regularly conduct stress tests and other measures to reduce risks, which are quite expensive. Now let's imagine hypothetically that the state decides to abolish non-cash funds and leave only digital money in the economy. Technically, this is quite possible. Why might the state decide to do this? Because of the instability of the banking system, the cascading crisis of non-payments, the banking system being too "expensive" for the state to introduce full control over the financial sector in critical conditions. In principle, digital money is quite capable of being the main financial mechanism of the economy. Moreover, for most ordinary clients, nothing will change in the handling of their finances, since digital money is no different from non-cash in terms of consumer properties. However, with such a hypothetical decision, banks are naturally deprived of their main function, and the Central Bank remains the only full-fledged bank in the state. Modern digital means, including artificial intelligence, allow even a large economy to have only one bank that meets all financial needs. In addition, centralization and consolidation of economic functions are always cheaper for the economy than decentralized mechanisms. Obviously, the Central Bank does not need large commissions for services, its purpose does not imply commercial profit. Banks, of course, will not disappear, they will remain with clients, with platform solutions, but, in essence, their function will be reduced only to ensuring transactions and trading assets - in general, a less profitable activity than financial intermediation.

Ideas for the introduction of digital money bypassing the banking system have already been put forward. In 2018, a referendum was held in Switzerland on the Vollgeld (sovereign money) initiative, put forward by independent economists, which, in particular, assumed the introduction of electronic money issued by the Swiss National Bank and a ban on non-cash money. And although the referendum rejected the initiative, it gave rise to an extensive discussion about the fundamental possibility of such a solution. Research carried out within the framework of the initiative at the universities of Basel and Bern showed the fundamental possibility of such a solution and even certain economic benefits for the state and citizens from it.

However, today in our country the scenario of "cancelling banks" obviously seems too radical. There are no economic, political, social or technological reasons for it. But in the tangle of contradictions and problems, direct and indirect benefits of the digital ruble for the state, banks, citizens, commercial and budgetary organizations, this synergistic effect has yet to be found.