It was in the papers (including the Financial Times i think) that they could be programmed to only allow certain purchases. Those that the state deems "good for you". So given the current state of what activists are trying to get the government to interfere with in people's lives, that could be a limit on fuel allowance per week (good luck if you commute a long way), limits on red meat so you can top your protein up with bugs instead, limits on cigarettes (not a bad thing in my mind, but who am I to decide how people live, which is the whole point of the argument against state interference in our lives) to name a few. Granted, some of this could probably be controlled with the tech that's used now for our currency (which is essentially digital), but currently choices of what we can buy are decided by our banks, that have little interest in what we purchase, as long as we have something in there, or pay our fees. If it becomes Central Bank owned, then they're making the decisions for everyone. It's absolutely not trustless - do you trust the central banks, given the state of the economy and their reactions to it over the last year? Also, having different banks decide what you can or can't do with your money is much better - with CBDC you can't drop your bank that spouts woke nonsense you might not agree with and select another one. Competition means options. With CBDCs you'd have to agree with whatever the sole source of funding decides is good for you and your family. Also, it's a lot easier to create these systems of extreme control when they're built from scratch. Hence they want new CBDCs to replace the current digital money system. If they could build this much control into the current system they wouldn't need to announce CBDCs as a new thing or try so hard to get people on board with it. They could just do it behind the scenes.