Image based on one from pymnts.com, via Graft Network (top part, showing the TradFi version); Blockchain and Crypto version is my own addition. Click to zoom (although the PDF version has better resolution).

From looking at that image (which I'd call an infographic if not for The Treachery of Images, their tendency to horribly over-simplify and hide information/facts), the choice does indeed seem obvious, doesn't it? Of course, those of us whom have been around long enough to know better that a simple picture of a pipe isn't the pipe itself also know that it doesn't present the full picture. (For example, I have no idea what an "ISO/VAR" is and the image doesn't clarify that. It also doesn't mention that payment times are "best case" scenarios; sometimes TradFi takes up to two weeks to pay, while DeFi can take up to two days during times of congestion, assuming transactions don't fail as they sometimes do.) So too with blockchain, crypto and DeFI: It's not devoid of dangers for the inexperienced and unwary, but it's a hell of a lot better than TradFi. Sadly, only a small minority (~4%) of us (DeFi "degens") know this, while many do not and not just reject it but are openly hostile. They do indeed need our help to learn and understand the new system so they can abandon the old one that is holding them (and us) back, often deliberately. A failure to adequately provide user documentation and educate can often be a significant contribution to the failure of adopting a new system, not just faults in the system itself.

I've seen the phenomenon with companies unwilling to move to new and improved systems because they perceive the lack of old aspects that were detrimental to the old system to be a lack of features in the new one. (The old system output data in CSV and XML formats, which were horribly verbose, inefficient and lacked self-encapsulated data type enforcement. The newer one used JSON. They wouldn't update their software that depended on the old formats.) Really, banks and credit cards (and all the attendant paraphernalia) are bugs and bloat added on in unsuccessful attempts to address/mitigate the underlying faults and inefficiency (ironically magnifying them) of the old system, not features of it.

CBDCs are many things we don't want, but what they really are is an attempt to digitise fiat (a system that already operates in a digital/online space and does a bad job of it). An iteration of more of the same old system won't solve anything. Indeed, countries (or at least state actors) that are moving to it and away from fiat (instead of onto blockchain and crypto) are actually experiencing increases in problems associated with fiat in a digital/online space, particularly where not all citizens have fast/reliable Internet connections. Just look to China (digital Yen) and Nigeria (eNaira) for examples.

Any good R&D manager/HoD worth their salary will understand this. If you are not that person, enlist the help of one to make your case.

“Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work ... when you go to church ... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch: A prison for your mind.
[...] Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
 — Lana Wachowski, The Matrix (circa 2003, just five years before Satoshi Nakamoto gave us Bitcoin)

OK, OK, The Matrix saga is strictly an allegory for the hetero-normative world and transphobia, but like all good allegories that aren't immediately obvious, you can probably extend/repurpose/misquote it to fit your needs. (Hell, the Incel/MGTOW/MRA crowd have certainly missed the boat in trying to repurpose it to misrepresent Feminism, which I find deliciously ironic. People have been doing that with religious scripture for thousands of years, so why stop now at The Book of Satoshi?)

Still, the point is that if you want to present something to management or other corporate types and get them on board, paint them a pretty picture that hides the details. That's all for which they care (and why I've gone to the trouble of making this deliberately simplified image, also available as a PDF, that you may freely copy and distribute). Present the details to the technically inclined folks (R&D, Engineering and Software Development, maybe even Finance). When you understand that, you understand Magritte's painting and the message of it, that a picture/representation of the pipe isn't the pipe itself, yet some conflate the two.

Only when the top brass show interest beyond giving you approval to handle implementing it or migrating to it should you reveal what's behind it all, if at all. I assume that since you're reading this, you have read my "Deciphering Cryptocurrencies" posts (linked in "Resources")  and other compendiums of publicly-available knowledge and are well enough equipped to field those questions, since I can't possibly teach you everything, despite my best efforts and intentions. As always, DYOFR when you need to know/present more.

In case you haven't figured it out, management can't be bothered to read this stuff and do it's own research when they have you for that. That's why it believes all the FUD about "crypto is for criminals and money-launderers" by/from criminals trying to maintain and protect the old and incumbent system that allows them to steal with impunity because it's "legal" to do so (id est, state-sanctioned money laundering). It's up to you to explain and motivate for change, assuming they're amenable to that. You can't rely on executives to improvise, innovate, adapt and improve; that has to come from R&D and experience in the field, since real and radical disruptive change happens from the bottom up, not the top down. Engineers might make and provide the wheels of change, but it's the field service technicians and support staff whom grease them and keep them moving, the real most valuable employees. (That's a topic for at least one of my previous posts, should you care to find it.)

I'll leave you with this idea: As much as I liked the now-defunct Celcius' slogan ("unbank yourself"), I like this better, even though it's not as concise and snappy (although "concise" often becomes "terse" and I'm detail-oriented to the point of verbosity): "Be your own bank. It's not as scary as you think and the advantages are worth the risk."