The digital euro should become a new form of European currency capable of generating value, not just storing it.
by Roberto Rivera,
Chairman & CEO of RIV Capital Group
The idea of ​​a digital euro has reignited the debate on European monetary sovereignty in the post-fiat era, that is, beyond traditional legal tender in various nations. In his recent article in Il Sole 24 Ore, Professor Stefano Caselli clearly grasped the crux of the issue: putting the citizen, not the bureaucracy, back at the center of monetary design. But this very vision, so shared in its principles, risks overlooking the more structural and less perceived aspect of the problem: the nature and management of reserves.
The absence of the “reserves” dimension
The debate on the digital euro tends to focus on user experience, privacy, and trust, forgetting that every monetary architecture is, first and foremost, an architecture of reserves. Without a clear definition of reserve backing—that is, what type of asset can be used as collateral—it is impossible to determine whether the digital euro will be a form of base money, a collateralised stablecoin (i.e., a cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable price, whose value is tied to a specific, real asset), or a mere accounting token (i.e., a digital representation of an asset).
In the ECB’s “intermediated” model, the citizen’s wallet remains anchored to the commercial banking system: a derivative structure (overlay) that recreates the same systemic fragility in a digital guise. In the alternative model proposed by Prof. Caselli, it is not specified whether reserves are held at the ECB or with private intermediaries: in both cases, the result is a passive currency, incapable of generating value.
The “digital = gold standard” paradox
A stablecoin rigidly linked (pegged) to the euro or any fiat currency recreates a constraint analogous to the old gold standard. Fixed reserves limit the quantity of money in circulation and negate the countercyclical function of monetary policy. The result is a digitalization of the past, not an evolution of the future: a return to monetary rigidity disguised as technological innovation.
“Digital” is not synonymous with “evolved” if the underlying logic remains that of immobilized collateral. In this sense, the digital euro risks becoming a tokenized gold standard: perfectly traceable, but sterilely neutral.
Toward a Generative Reserve
One possible alternative is represented by active reserve systems, in which collateralization is not static but high-performing. In the case of RIVCoin, for example, the reserve is vaulted and invested in an integrated strategy that combines centralized (CeFi) and decentralized (DeFi) finance with a historical average return of 20% per year, managed by RIV Capital SICAV-RAIF (Luxembourg). The seigniorage mechanism redistributed to liquidity providers transforms reserves from collateral to a driver of value, making money not only stable but productive.
This approach, in which money is both a payment instrument and a yield asset, represents a synthesis of public trust and private efficiency, sovereignty and participation.
Conclusion
The digital euro must not limit itself to being “a more convenient euro.” It must become a new form of European currency capable of generating value, not just storing it. Without a reflection on reserves, any digital design risks being an elegant return to gold. With active reserves, however, Europe can finally move beyond the pegged paradigm and usher in a performing one.
Note: This contribution is the result of an open and constructive discussion with Professor Stefano Caselli and of ongoing research at RIV Capital Group and RIV Academy on “CeFi/DeFi Integration and the Future of Digital Sovereignty.”
