It is kind of correct that such similar was meaning, noting that more and more was piled on to the term with time. What those genuinely interested need to know is the power of those two little words in international trade agreements.

Take UNCITRAL CISG Art (2) as an example: "A further nuance arises, however, in relation to a particular sub-category of cryptocurrencies: those issued by central banks. Though cryptocurrency fungibility is assumed by some existing literature, not all cryptocurrencies are alike. Central bank digital currencies (‘CBDC’s’) differ from other cryptocurrencies in one critical respect for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes: they have State backing, and also constitute legal tender in their issuing State for that reason. Though CBDC’s are not yet common, some States are ‘dabbling’ in this area, and China in particular has taken significant steps towards launching its digital yuan. If CISG article 2(d) is read as referring to State-issued money, CBDC trade (as one particular type of cryptocurrency trade) would actually be excluded from the CISG’s scope.

At first glance, the CISG’s differing application to these two types of cryptocurrencies might appear artificial. It must nevertheless be kept in mind that although CBDC’s have no physical representation via notes and coins, traditional State-issued money is often transacted electronically in any event: even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analogising CBDC’s with traditional State-issued money, for CISG article 2(d)’s purposes, therefore has at least some practical basis.

Differentiating CBDC’s from other cryptocurrencies for the purposes of the CISG’s application is not dissimilar to the existing distinction between equivalent traditional and digital goods that has plagued sales laws around the world and that I otherwise remedy (in the CISG context) in this article. This particular CBDC problem arguably reflects the law’s overall ‘nascent’ ability to deal with cryptocurrencies."