Here's the paragraph the title refers to:
"Arguably, the most significant and plausible financial stability risk of a general purpose CBDC is that it can facilitate a flight away from private financial institutions and markets towards the central bank. Faced with systemic financial stress, households and other agents in both advanced and emerging market economies tend to suddenly shift their deposits towards financial institutions perceived to be safer and/or into government securities. Of course, agents could always flee towards the central bank by holding more cash. But a CBDC could allow for “digital runs” towards the central bank with unprecedented speed and scale. Even in the presence of deposit insurance, the stability of retail funding could weaken because a risk-free CBDC provides a very safe alternative."
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)  is not the "world's central bank." It isn't even a central bank. It has no monopoly on any monetary base and does not act as a lender of last resort .
Is this even a legit reporting site?
HN user only posts articles from that site:
Looks most likely a bot posting.
The reason why Bitcoin will cause the mother of all bank runs is because Bitcoin will eat up banks' liquidity that is desperately needed to keep the leverage ratios in check. Rather simply, because banks take in deposits and then generate revenue, by extracting the value of your capital, by lending it out to other people at interest. This is the most common form of money creation in the economy (with other people focusing on T Bills, quantitative easing, etc) If people continue to dump dollars/fiat (which are only liquid if your bank doesn't screw up and over leverage themselves) for money that is always liquid (Bitcoin) then essentially the liquidity that banks rely on dries up, their leveraging goes up, and the slightest market hiccup causes an intra/inter-bank liquidity-failure cascade. 
Given that typical leverage ratios are ~3-5% (or banks only have 1 dollar for ever 33 dollars they say they have) and that the total supply of M1 is ~4 Trillion , the balance they have available (5%*2e12=$200 billion) is hitting the first threshold of concern because Bitcoin's market cap is ~$150 billion and cryptocurrencies in total are $360 Billion (though volume would be a better indication of flows). No wonder central banks are literally conspiring to smear Bitcoin rather than admit their own incompetence. Once the Bitcoin/cryptocurrency market caps approach ~$800 billion (equivalent liquidity of M2 leverage) the sparks are really going to fly in liquidity problems with banks.
Will banks avoid this? My guess is no, because such a CBDC won't allow the squish that banks need to cook books or mask liquidity problems as "Crises of confidence" and the competitive forces demand higher and higher amounts of leverage and that the government has colluded with the banking industry to constantly socialize their losses, while the banking sector privatizes gains. For more reading check out, The End of Alchemy 
Which do you think is more likely Bitcoin is going to stop working or banks will under-engineer their financial safety factors and fail (like they've habitually done)? Hopefully you have your skin in the game your gut tells you is going to happen.
If the coin is run by the central bank then they could put up >50% of the mining capacity. Then if there was a run, just ignore transactions.
title: "World’s Central Bank: Crypto Could Risk Bank Runs"
0 mention of "Bank Runs" in the article.
Anyone caught in a bank run only has themselves to blame. It's their responsibility to not deposit their money in an over-leveraged bank. Unfortunately due to FDIC insurance, consumers now spend more time researching the quality of the LCD monitors on the market, when deciding which one to buy, than the future financial solvency of banks, when deciding which one to trust their money to.