The technological revolution has undoubtedly redefined the established understandings of monetary law about the role of the central bank as the sole issuer of money. Namely, the use of technology in the creation of new money that is accepted by monetary users violates one of the basic rules of monetary law that the role of the issuer must not be natural persons. Although it is undeniable that in the conditions of the technological revolution, the central bank must redefine its functions and tasks, this must not be at the expense of monetary security, which is its main task. Although the role and the increased number of natural persons in the creation of cryptocurrency must not be ignored, because that would be simultaneously ignoring the postulates of the social theory of money (according to which the attitude of citizens about what money is and not what the state has prescribed is important), this does not mean that the process of further development of the use of cryptocurrency should be realized outside the jurisdiction of the central bank.

Legislative initiatives that would accompany the introduction of central bank digital money also depend on the specific form of that money, more precisely, whether it would be based on the introduction of tokens or central bank assets. If this digital money expressed in tokens were to be legally equated with banknotes (to the extent that this is even possible), the conditions for it to receive the status of legal tender should be established beforehand. One option in this regard is to limit the status of legal tender to a closed circle of sophisticated entities (state, public services, large traders, and/or firms with authorized activities, such as banks). After that, it would be necessary to carefully analyze the private law classification of digital money based on tokens and whether it is justified to give it certain advantages (incentives) arising from the principles of private law regarding the promotion of use (advantages and benefits of use in payment transactions should be regulated by a new solution to popularize the use of central bank digital money). In the end, the issuance of digital money by the central bank would also mean the need to redefine criminal legislation in the part that refers to the legal existence of criminal acts of cybercrime, but also financial crime (in general). In its statement on the potential implications of the introduction of stable currencies on monetary policy, the European Central Bank pointed to three possible scenarios for the introduction of stable currencies: the first - which emphasizes their auxiliary function in the concept of crypto-assets understood in the broadest sense of the word; to the second - which guarantees a safer collection of income from payments in cryptocurrencies and in which they appear as a new method of payment, and; the third, where cryptocurrencies appear and are treated as an alternative measure of value preservation, which is otherwise one of the basic economic functions of classic money.

In the monetary literature, it is emphasized that the taxonomy of all forms of money (both traditional and alternative forms) is based on the application of three criteria: the legal subjectivity of the issuer; the form of money, that appears as physical or digital, and; transaction settlement mechanism, which can be centralized or decentralized. One of the reasons for the lack of acceptance of the first generation of cryptocurrencies is related to the inelastic demand caused by several risks such as issues of protection of privacy rights, unclear compensation, and protection of other personal data. This risk is reduced with the second generation of cryptocurrencies, but the issue of a kind of monopoly over issuance by technology companies that will be in the role of issuers is raised. Adding new powers to the central bank can be a complicated legislative procedure, bearing in mind the fact that the number of its tasks has increased significantly after the global financial crisis. The objectives for which the central bank is now responsible are very often in conflict with each other, which implies prior parification when choosing a specific objective as dominant at a certain moment in monetary history, but also raises the question of the responsibility of the central bank. If, hypothetically, there was a significant increase in the share of cryptocurrency compared to classic money, the absence of legal regulation by the central bank could be very dangerous for social order and the protection of the rights of monetary users.