Hyperledger technologies can provide ledger and interoperability components for a central bank digital currency (CBDC), but they do not determine the currency’s policy, operating model, or readiness for issuance. Published examples range from adoption interest and sandbox testing to a proof of concept; none of those stages alone proves production readiness or suitability for another jurisdiction.
Start with the CBDC design, not the platform
A CBDC is a central-bank liability in digital form, but the technology needed to support one depends on what the central bank intends to issue and how people or institutions will use it. A retail CBDC is intended for use by the public; a wholesale CBDC is designed for financial institutions or settlement use. A domestic system has different integration needs from a cross-border arrangement, and a pilot has a different bar from a production service.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The BIS’s 2024 retail architecture proposal frames a hybrid model around enrollment, cash-in, cash-out, and transfers within the ledger. In such a model, the central bank and intermediaries can have different responsibilities; the software alone does not decide who onboards users, handles customer relationships, or processes transactions. The exact design varies with jurisdictional policy, regulation, infrastructure, and objectives. BIS, “A proposal for a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) architecture” (17 December 2024).
- Enrollment: Define how eligible users or institutions are identified and who performs onboarding.
- Cash-in and cash-out: Specify how conventional money is exchanged for CBDC and redeemed, and which entities operate those services.
- Transfers: Determine who may transact, whether transfers are intermediated, and how the ledger connects to existing payment systems.
- Oversight: Decide what privacy users have from counterparties and institutions, and what regulatory or audit access is required.
These choices shape the platform criteria. The BIS’s 2019 technology paper discusses the choice between distributed ledgers and centrally controlled infrastructure, including privacy and law-enforcement trade-offs. It is useful for framing enduring questions, not as a substitute for current, jurisdiction-specific requirements. BIS, “The technology of retail central bank digital currency” (2019).
#1 Best Overall
What the Hyperledger components do in the cited examples
These projects serve different roles. A ledger, an interoperability layer, an identity-oriented effort, and a proof-of-concept payment system are not interchangeable, and none is a ready-made CBDC policy or operating model.
Besu: an EVM-compatible ledger option to evaluate
Hyperledger’s 2024 Besu annual review reports adoption interest around CBDC pilots. Swift’s Phase 2 sandbox materials describe a simulated Digital Asset Network running on Besu, while CBDC networks in the sandbox used other technologies. Those references support Besu as a candidate for experimentation in relevant settings; they do not mean it was the CBDC ledger in every sandbox test, or that interest amounts to a live issuance. Hyperledger Besu 2024 annual review; Swift, “The technologies employed: Swift CBDC sandbox project – Phase 2” (2022).
Fabric: a permissioned ledger in an interoperability sandbox
Swift’s Phase 2 technical report describes Fabric as a permissioned blockchain and includes it among the technologies used in the interoperability sandbox. That establishes its role in the described test, not a general performance, privacy, or production-readiness result. Swift, “The technologies employed: Swift CBDC sandbox project – Phase 2” (2022).
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →FireFly: coordination across networks
Hyperledger’s 2024 Q2 FireFly report says FireFly facilitated interoperability in Swift’s CBDC Phase 2 collaboration across networks running Besu, Fabric, and Corda. It is relevant as an integration and orchestration layer; it is not itself a currency or a central bank’s policy layer. The report describes sandbox work involving 38 banks and seven simulated CBDC networks. Those figures describe the collaboration and simulations—not live CBDCs or public issuance. Hyperledger FireFly 2024 Q2 report.
Rank #3
Iroha: a central-bank proof of concept
Hyperledger’s 2024 Iroha annual review describes the Bokolo-cash proof of concept involving the Central Bank of Solomon Islands and Soramitsu. The described use cases included domestic and foreign payments and simulated international remittances. The source calls it a proof of concept, not an operational national currency. Hyperledger Iroha 2024 annual review.
Indy and Indy Besu: identity-related capabilities
Indy is identity-oriented, not a standalone payment-ledger recommendation. Hyperledger’s 2024 Indy annual review describes Indy Besu as a modular effort to implement Indy capabilities on Besu, including permissioning and validator management. The same review says the Indy SDK was deprecated, so do not treat that SDK as a current starting point without checking current project guidance. Hyperledger Indy 2024 annual review.
Rank #4
How to assess whether a component fits
There is no like-for-like benchmark in the cited material from which to rank these projects by throughput, cost, or security. Evaluate a proposed architecture against the central bank’s requirements and the delivery team’s ability to operate it.
- Governance and validator control: Identify who can validate transactions, approve membership, and change the network. Clarify how central-bank authority and intermediary responsibilities are represented.
- Privacy and access: Specify what transaction information counterparties, intermediaries, central-bank operators, regulators, and auditors can see. Distinguish privacy from the public from confidentiality between institutions.
- Identity and onboarding: Map enrollment to the chosen identity model and applicable rules. An identity capability does not by itself define a CBDC’s eligibility or compliance policy.
- Payments and resilience: Set transaction, availability, recovery, and continuity requirements for the intended use. The cited reports do not provide comparable benchmarks for these measures.
- Interoperability: List the required connections to banks, payment systems, and other ledgers. Decide whether the system needs a ledger choice, a coordination layer, or both.
- Programmability: Establish whether smart contracts or other programmable functions are needed and what controls govern their deployment and change.
- Operations and maturity: Account for upgrades, incident response, support, and the project’s current status. A sandbox or proof of concept is evidence of experimentation, not evidence that a system meets production obligations.
For a procurement or architecture decision, verify current project guidance and the relevant central bank’s own publications. The cited Hyperledger reports are from 2024, Swift’s technology description is from 2022, and the sources do not establish that every described example is in production today.
What the evidence supports
The published record supports a measured conclusion: Hyperledger technologies have appeared in CBDC-related adoption discussions, interoperability testing, and a central-bank proof of concept. Besu, Fabric, FireFly, Iroha, and Indy-related work have distinct roles, so “using Hyperledger” is not a single architecture choice. The examples do not establish that any one component is best for a CBDC, that a pilot has become a live currency, or that a solution is suitable for a different country’s policy and operational requirements.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
