CBDC Signal Index
Measurement release · version 2.0
CBDC-CSI

What central banks say about digital currency, measured.

A disagreement-weighted Bayesian index of communicated stance, estimated from 5,718 CBDC sentences in BIS central bankers' speeches, 2015 to 2025.

Scroll
The global turn

Attention fell. Commitment hardened.

Stance and attention are reported separately and never combined. A central bank that says nothing is silent, not neutral, so it is absent from these means rather than counted as zero. Attention peaked in 2023; stance kept climbing after it.

Communicated stance

Mean CSI across institutions with data, with the interquartile range

Attention

CBDC sentences per 1,000 sentences spoken, mean across institutions

The attention-stance plane

Engaged, and unpersuaded.

The quadrant no single tone score can isolate is the lower right: institutions that discuss CBDC at length and remain sceptical. Point area is proportional to the number of CBDC sentences behind each estimate.

2025
sceptical stance neutral committed stance circle area proportional to CBDC sentence count
Institution trajectories

Every estimate carries its own uncertainty.

Each series is a posterior path with its 90% credible band. Solid points are years with CBDC discourse; hollow points are years the institution said nothing, where the estimate is propagated by the random walk and the band widens to say so.

Composite stance with credible band

 

Dimension profile

Cell means of the three scored dimensions, standardised across the corpus

Favourability Urgency Risk salience
Stance is not sentiment

Tone misses a quarter of the opposition.

This index measures the position a central bank communicates toward CBDC, not the affective tone of its language. The two are related but they are not the same construct, and the corpus lets us say by how much.

Engines cluster by lineage, not construct

Pairwise correlation on the favourability axis, all 5,718 sentences

The two released encoders agree with each other far more closely than either agrees with an independent reading of the same sentences. They share a base model and overlapping training data, so this is method variance rather than evidence that either has captured the construct.

Where tone drifts from position

Mean of (tone minus position), both standardised, by rubric risk salience

Risk-dominated sentences read markedly colder than the position they actually express. The effect is strongly signed but small in aggregate, explaining under three per cent of the variance in the gap.

When a tone reading inverts the position

Favourable position, negative affective tone, high risk salience

What a three-class label leaves unmeasured

Rubric urgency inside each class of the released stance model

The panel

Sixty institutions, eleven years.

Only observed cells are listed. Click a column heading to sort. Sentiment is the mean CBDC-Sentiment valence for that bank-year on its natural scale; tone is the same quantity standardised. They are one measurement on two scales, not two pieces of evidence, and neither enters the index.

InstitutionCountryYear CSI90% interval SentimentToneGap SalienceSentencesOrientation

Open data

Take the index, filtered your way.

The whole index is here. Set the filters, choose the columns you need, and take it as CSV. Nothing is sent anywhere: the file is assembled in your browser from the data already on this page.

Rows
Columns

 

What the columns mean
Terms of use

The index is free to use with attribution. The underlying speeches are the property of the Bank for International Settlements and the issuing central banks and are not redistributed here; the scored corpus carries a source URL for every sentence, so any score can be traced back.

Cite as
The measurement model

Disagreement is data, not noise.

The index is not an average of classifier labels. Sentence scores are treated as noisy indicators of an unobserved stance, and the variance of each indicator grows with how far the scoring engines disagree about it.

ybar[i,t,d] ~ Normal( a[d] + L[d] * Psi[i,t] ,  sigma[d]^2 / n[i,t] * exp(2 * lam[d] * Dbar[i,t,d]) )
Psi[i,t] ~ Normal( Psi[i,t-1] , tau^2 )   CSI[i,t] = Psi[i,t]   L[favourability] = 1

Estimated loadings and disagreement weights

Posterior mean with 94% highest-density interval. Weights are estimated, not assigned.

What the estimates say

Convergence

Annotation stability

Two independent passes of the rubric over a 322-unit stratified sample

Robustness

Open for research use

Built to be checked, not just cited.