The question is who controls the ledger. See my prior: >>18500096
Any time one person or entity has the authority to edit the ledger, they inevitably choose to go down the path of picking winners and losers. This comes at the expense of the rest of the fiduciary system.
Money is an allocation resource. We use money as a relative metric of appraisal of the cost and specialization of an asset. I don't need to know about the grand supply system to optimize my consumption of resources. Things that are cheap are either of low burden to produce or in very low demand. Things that are expensive require a lot of rare resources and/or specialized pricessing to produce.
When centrally controlled ledgers get ammended to remove this self-regulating component, you get situations where pricing no longer regulates production or consumption. Rather than pursuing market demand, the interests of the ledger editors are pursued. Rather than engineering solutions the market will bear, some businesses are given customers who will always have ledger points to spend on their products.
The question is not if this will lead to economic ruin - but when the efforts of the ledger editors to gimmick the resources and labors of others leads to such amusing scenarios where "how many dollars does a dollar cost" is a relevant question to the function of the fiduciary system.
Block chains like bitcoin and monero use distributed validation and proof of work systems to reduce the odds that a singke entity will be able to gain control over the ledger. There are proof of stake systems (litecoin, etherium, hashgraph) that work a bit differently and distribute validation authority across the share of ownership of tokens.
Not all are the same and each one does something diffetent. CBDCs are basically a token system where the bank controls the tokens. It's basically the current model on steroids and cocaine.