Cosmos’s Modular Blockchain Architecture Surprisingly Becomes the Technical Foundation for Central Bank Digital Currencies?
(Background: Celestia vs Cosmos: A Comparison of Core Architecture, Application Scenarios, and Token Value)
(Context: The Rise of the Cosmos Ecosystem, What Opportunities to Watch on Berachain?)
Introduction
On May 22, 2025, Maghnus Mareneck, Co-CEO of Interchain Labs, revealed that the Colombian government is collaborating with a bank consortium to test a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) aimed at cross-border payment scenarios on the Cosmos network, opting for a private, permissioned node model and the IBC Eureka technology stack.
【Source: news.bitcoin.com】
No DAO, no on-chain governance, only permissioned nodes and distributed ledgers. Who would have thought that the so-called “decentralized Lego” of Cosmos would become the ideal partner for central bank digital currencies?
Cosmos: The Building Blocks of Chain Creation, Just the Right Power Suit
Cosmos is not a public chain but a complete toolkit for “chain creation + chain communication,” designed specifically for a multi-chain architecture. Compared to the standardized and open Ethereum, Cosmos’s flexibility and controllability provide an ideal template for central banks to create a “custom sovereign ledger.”
Cosmos SDK: Assembling Sovereign Chains Like Lego
The Cosmos SDK is a modular development framework that allows central banks to assemble according to their needs:
- Incorporate account permission and KYC modules
- Disable smart contract virtual machines to prevent “uncontrollable” contract deployment
- Add regulatory audit, targeted payment, and other regulatory plugins
Tendermint BFT: Taking Turns as the “Central Bank”
Cosmos utilizes the Tendermint consensus, not depending on computational mining but rather having authorized validators take turns producing blocks. The node members are controllable, with extremely low latency and strong block confirmation, making it naturally suited for the real-time payment scenarios of CBDCs.
IBC: The “TCP/IP” Between Chains
IBC is Cosmos’s cross-chain communication protocol:
- Supports state proofs and asset cross-chain
- Zone chains operate independently, exchanging certification data packets as needed
- Realizes chain-level whitelisting and packet review, enabling “controlled interoperability” instead of chaotic interoperability
With this protocol and the ICS-20 standard, tokens like ATOM and OSMO can circulate freely among multiple Zones in the Cosmos ecosystem without the need for bridging.
Hub-and-Zone: Rejecting Redundant Wheel Reinvention in L2
The Cosmos architecture is based on “Hub and Zone”:
- The Cosmos Hub is the earliest chain in the ecosystem but is not the “command center.”
- Zones refer to independent chains, such as Osmosis and Juno, each with its own ledger and validators.
- They communicate via IBC without requiring Hub mediation.
Each Zone is a “pluggable, self-maintaining” sovereign chain that interconnects but does not need to submit to one another.
The Colombian Path: The Sovereign Calculation Behind the Technology Selection
The CBDC chain in Colombia is, in fact, a Zone utilizing Cosmos technology.
- It does not rely on the Cosmos Hub
- It does not directly interconnect with other DeFi ecosystems
- It is a closed permissioned chain, utilizing only the three core components of Cosmos SDK, Tendermint, and IBC
For the Colombian central bank, this is not a decentralized “idealism,” but a form of “pragmatism.”
The Divergence of Cosmos and mBridge: Balancing Cost, Efficiency, and Control
In the infrastructure selection for central bank digital currencies, Cosmos perhaps did not foresee itself becoming one of the pathways.
The currently dominant path remains mBridge, led by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and involving numerous cooperating countries—a coalition chain network that connects various national CBDC networks (including central banks and international organizations, totaling five members and over 32 observer members). Each member country’s central bank establishes an Operator Node, resembling a united central bank, and allows licensed commercial banks or other settlement institutions to execute nodes for currency exchange.
Below is a comparison of mBridge, Cosmos, and mainstream cross-chain bridges:
Why did Colombia not choose mBridge and instead turn to Cosmos?
On one hand, mBridge is a product of great power competition, with a slow pace of technological updates and high entry barriers. On the other hand, Cosmos provides “out-of-the-box” technical components, allowing for the construction of a local permissioned chain without complex negotiations or diplomatic coordination, while also reserving the possibility for future interoperability through IBC.
This aligns more closely with the current practical demands of Latin American economies:
- Limited budget, quick construction required
- Reluctance to fully depend on an alliance led by a specific major power
- Desire to find a balance between regulatory control and blockchain innovation
If Colombia’s pilot is successful, Cosmos may become a new path for small to medium-sized economies to construct sovereign digital currencies. A controllable, cost-acceptable, and technology-independent road could potentially be replicated by more sovereign nations in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. This marks a typical victory of “technological pragmatism.”
Conclusion
Cosmos offers a form of technical “neutrality” and “customizability”: it does not presuppose governance answers nor does it reject centralized deployment.
Colombia has not joined Web3; it has merely borrowed from Cosmos. With no open nodes, no on-chain governance, and no connection to public chain ecosystems—this Cosmos-based CBDC chain resembles a streamlined and modified “sovereign currency machine.”
However, this “temperature adaptation” of Web3 technology in real-world scenarios is also a form of acknowledgment of its engineering value.
