TL;DR; imo the article is all over the place. It has some good points, but fails to create a coherent analysis and conclusion.
This article has a very particular take, I checked the Journalist, Lucie ROBEQUAIN, who works for a libertanian LVMH owned newspaper Echo. Nothing too weird. But I guess it's the way pro and contra arguments are presented which make it somewhat cringe. Some examples here;
-
Europe will have to make up for several years of lag behind America.
Lagging is imo a description out of context. EU had and has adopted USA services because that worked, and were safe and reliable. Since, geopolitics changed that, we now need to become more sovereign.
-
Can the digital euro reverse the trend? Scepticism prevails, at least for the time being: firstly, because it will not be introduced until 2029, and is therefore coming far too late to counter US hegemony. Secondly, because European consumers already have numerous payment methods at their disposal (cash, bank cards, bank transfers, cheques, Apple Pay, etc.) and do not necessarily feel the need to adopt a new one.
Again, a weird argument if payment becomes cheaper via the European method even if thats in 2029, and due to the current sentiment, I'm sure Europens will adopt any good non- USA payment product.
-
‘Wero’, which enables instant money transfers between friends and will soon be extended to online shopping. According to them, the ECB, which is leading the digital euro project, is not necessarily best placed to develop disruptive technologies to compete
Wero is a separate payment method afaik, though commercially driven, it's not competing with the digital euro, but can be used in parallel, conjunction or as an alternative.
-
“The role of the euro could grow:
This was about euro being used as a stable coins. Sure , the role will grow when it's being used more and become more accessible to third countries.