“To advance digital payments, promote innovation, and enhance safety and efficiency in the financial sector, central banks have multiple tools at their disposal,” states a 2024 BIS paper.1 It lists two tools in particular: a retail CBDC and an instant payment system (IPS, sometimes referred to as a fast payment system, or FPS).
Note that it is a given that central banks must “advance digital payments.” With the pace of digitization worldwide, it would be careless not to. However, the central bank’s remit also includes protecting the interests of their nation and its citizens. Therefore, sovereignty, safety, and efficiency must be ensured.
Both CBDC and IPS have their advantages in this context. Retail CBDCs are at various stages of their trials across the world. If the European Central Bank (ECB) adheres to its schedule, it is highly likely that more than 350 million people in the eurozone will be able to use a digital euro for payments in the second half of the 2020s.2 At the other end, the success of Pix in Brazil and UPI in India – among other examples – points to the strengths of IPS.
In fact, many nations are pursuing both a CBDC and an IPS, including both Brazil and India. In a survey published this year, Kwame Oppong, Head of Fintech and Innovation at the Bank of Ghana, stated, “When you consider how payments are developing, we believe that those who move to an IPS now will end up moving to a CBDC later in any case, so we might as well go straight there.”3 He isn’t alone: 48% of respondents in the same paper stated that they expect to issue a CBDC within the next five years.4
To consider how these two could be complementary, let us look at what makes them similar, and what differentiates them.




