
The expanded Substack essay is here https://bitesizepayments.substack.com/p/identity-privacy-and-surveillance
Orwell said privacy would be taken. Huxley said we'd hand it over.
On digital payments, we managed both.
And it's left us arguing about the wrong thing. Total transparency or total anonymity. Surveillance state or crypto shadows. Pick one.
That framing is tidy, and it's false — because it misses why cash worked in the first place. Cash was never a principled privacy design. It was an accident of physics. Paper can't phone home.
The middle ground we're mourning was never engineered. We just inherited it.
Which means if we want one now, we have to build it on purpose. And the tools already exist. Zero-knowledge proofs. Selective disclosure. Tokenisation. Prove you're over eighteen without showing your birth date. Prove the funds are clean without exposing the account. The digital euro's offline design keeps transaction details between payer and payee alone — and Parliament cleared the framework last month.
So the real question was never transparency versus anonymity.
It's whether anyone with power actually wants the middle.
Orwell and Huxley both assumed we'd have no choice. That part they got wrong.
Payments Industry Insights
History of Payments
Payment System Explained
Corporate Payments Strategy
Payment Regulations Impact
ISO20022 Standard
Digital Payments Evolution
CBDC Advancements
Cryptocurrency in Payments
Financial Technology Education
Weitere Episoden von „Bitesize Payments“



Verpasse keine Episode von “Bitesize Payments” und abonniere ihn in der kostenlosen GetPodcast App.








