Should all money be placed on central banks’ balance sheets?

Under the contemporary model, the lion’s share of money is located on banks’ balance sheets and is primarily the counterpart of lending. But the idea has been floated to shift to another model, where the lion’s share of money would be in central banks’ liabilities, for example with the introduction of public retail cryptocurrencies. What would be the pros and cons of switching to such an arrangement, where money would be entirely on central bank balance sheets? Seigniorage (an inflation tax linked to the existence of a zero- interest liability) would go entirely to the government instead of primarily to banks. This would be good for public finances, but would increase costs for banks and therefore the cost of credit; It is often claimed that it would be easier to implement helicopter money, by crediting economic agents’ accounts in the central bank’s balance sheet. But in reality, it is already very easy for the government to implement helicopter money, by having economic agents’ accounts in commercial banks’ balance sheets credited. Would deposits be safer if money was on the central bank’s balance sheet? The central bank cannot go bankrupt . B ut banks do enjoy deposit insurance; Would money creation be better managed, preserving the value of money? To be sure, there has been excessive lending, resulting in crises. Above all , today there is considerable expansion in the central bank money supply that provides no reassurance about central banks’ ability to control money creation. Altogether, the drawbacks (higher borrowing costs for the economy) of transferring money onto the central bank’s balance sheet outweigh the supposed benefits (ability to use helicopter money, safety, control over money creation) .