At least from a US perspective, type 1 money also has a digital component, just one only available to banks. I'm not familiar enough with how India's central bank works to know if things are similar, but the concept note makes it sound like it might be.
The accounts that members banks have at the Federal Reserve are legally equivalent to paper money. The banks can exchange part of that account balance for paper money, or exchange paper money for that account balance at any time. To settle debts between banks they almost never cart truckloads of cash between each other, but simply ask the federal reserve banks to adjust their balances accordingly.
This looks a LOT like the layer 2 money that banks create, but it is layer 1.
If RBI works similarly, then it is not really apparent why a wholesale CBDC would have substantial value. Interbank settlement would already occur via balance transfers at the central bank. It is not even remotely clear to me how an "account-based" wholesale CBDC would differ from the status quo at all. The main thing they mention is allowing more conditions to be attached to transactions allowing "programming" the central bank money (presumably in ways similar to "smart contracts"). There is no mention of why that could not simply be done by enhancing the existing systems, but they also point out that it could be a new tech stack from ground up, which suggests that they feel the existing tech stack has flaws.
Retail CBDC would be potentially more interesting, but also far more controversial. Nobody really cares about a central bank keeping a close eye on how banks send money to each other, but a retail CBDC is effectively an attempt to replace cash. There are a lot of issues with that, like people want privacy in cash transactions, but there is no way the bank wants create a new means of money laundering or similar. The fact that many plans for retail CBDCs seem to want desperately to adopt as many crypto currency technologies as possible causes lot of worry. Thinks like losing private keys meaning loss of money (and if intermediaries hold keys instead, you better hope they have really good information security.)
The accounts that members banks have at the Federal Reserve are legally equivalent to paper money. The banks can exchange part of that account balance for paper money, or exchange paper money for that account balance at any time. To settle debts between banks they almost never cart truckloads of cash between each other, but simply ask the federal reserve banks to adjust their balances accordingly.
This looks a LOT like the layer 2 money that banks create, but it is layer 1.
If RBI works similarly, then it is not really apparent why a wholesale CBDC would have substantial value. Interbank settlement would already occur via balance transfers at the central bank. It is not even remotely clear to me how an "account-based" wholesale CBDC would differ from the status quo at all. The main thing they mention is allowing more conditions to be attached to transactions allowing "programming" the central bank money (presumably in ways similar to "smart contracts"). There is no mention of why that could not simply be done by enhancing the existing systems, but they also point out that it could be a new tech stack from ground up, which suggests that they feel the existing tech stack has flaws.
Retail CBDC would be potentially more interesting, but also far more controversial. Nobody really cares about a central bank keeping a close eye on how banks send money to each other, but a retail CBDC is effectively an attempt to replace cash. There are a lot of issues with that, like people want privacy in cash transactions, but there is no way the bank wants create a new means of money laundering or similar. The fact that many plans for retail CBDCs seem to want desperately to adopt as many crypto currency technologies as possible causes lot of worry. Thinks like losing private keys meaning loss of money (and if intermediaries hold keys instead, you better hope they have really good information security.)