However, there are also plenty of downsides. Going cashless clearly increases the dependence of society on the internet and raises the risk of an increase in cyber crime. System failures and power cuts will prove even more costly than at present.
Given the recent track record of the UK's banking system for technology breakdowns, most famously at TSB last year, scepticism about the ability of the banks to maintain a flawless system would be more than justified. The loss of a mobile phone or computer - or even a phone running out of power - would also prove even more inconvenient for individuals than is currently the case. It could even become a new battlefront in hostilities between nations. It is easy to see how a hostile nation might target the payments system of another.
Another major associated downside would be the loss of privacy. A lot of people, not just criminals, may not like details of their every transaction being stored by a data provider.
And there is also the risk for some people, once they are no longer using cash, of recklessly spending money they do not have.
There is also evidence that cash has been very effective in helping some economies keep down inflation. For example in Japan, the ¥1,000 note (roughly equal to £7.40) has been for years used by many office workers to pay for their lunch, making it near-impossible for cafes, takeaways and workplace canteens to raise prices above that level for a meal. It is perhaps no coincidence that the two advanced economies where inflation has been most benign during the last few decades, Japan and Germany, are also the two developed economies furthest from becoming cashless.
But the biggest downside of all, as Sweden has shown, is the risk of financial exclusion becoming even more entrenched than ever. In the long run, going cashless might break down financial exclusion as the currently bankless are able to carry out more transactions via mobile devices.