5 ms·

But given the system laid out in the white paper, what specifically gives Facebook the ability to exert this kind of control, even in the long run? I think we

by bhupy 7y ago

But given the system laid out in the white paper, what specifically gives Facebook the ability to exert this kind of control, even in the long run? I think we all agree that Facebook is incentivized to behave in certain ways, but if self-limitation is baked into the system, how does that matter? This is a genuine question for which I would love an answer.

archenary 7y ago
The author explained this (quoted below). Even though FB doesn't control Libra (protocol), they do own Calibra (digital wallet). If Libra takes off, Calibra stands a good chance of becoming the default way of transacting in Libra. FB then becomes the de facto leader and holds outsized influence over the direction of the project/industry, much like Gmail/email, Chrome/web and Google/web search. > And this is when this bet would pay off for Facebook (and the second point I missed in my earlier analysis): the implication that digital currencies will do for money what the Internet did for information is that the very long-term trend will be towards centralization around Aggregators. When there is no friction, control shifts from gatekeepers controlling supply to Aggregators controlling demand. To that end, by pioneering Libra, building what will almost certainly be the first wallet for the currency, and bringing to bear its unmatched network for facilitating payments, Facebook is betting it will offer the best experience for digital currency flows, giving it power not by controlling Libra but rather by controlling the most users of Libra.
carleverett 7y ago
The white paper explicitly gives the Libra Association (i.e. Facebook and its partner validators) governance control over the cryptocurrency. Here's an easy scenario to imagine that shows how incentives would get misaligned: Facebook and the other validating nodes of Libra are financially compensated by interest from the collateral for Libra tokens. If Libra is successful in its mission, it will become a global currency that's stronger than the assets that underly its collateral. When this happens, suddenly Libra being a collateralized stablecoin stops making sense. Kind of like when the US Dollar no longer needed to be backed by gold since it was a strong enough currency/unit of financial measurement on its own. The US then got rid of the gold standard and has since saved itself untold money in custodial expenses they would have been paying to hold all that gold. The Association would never do this for the Libra however since it is literally how they are funding their own operation. Even if it's in the best interest of all Libra users, the centralized governance association with all of the authority to make this improvement would choose not to because it's not in their best interest to do so. There's no leap of imagination there - it's just how power and incentives work.
- jpkiser 7y ago
  > The white paper explicitly gives the Libra Association (i.e. Facebook and its partner validators) governance control over the cryptocurrency. > Here's an easy scenario to imagine that shows how incentives would get misaligned: Facebook and the other validating nodes of Libra are financially compensated by interest from the collateral for Libra tokens. If Libra is successful in its mission, it will become a global currency that's stronger than the assets that underly its collateral. > When this happens, suddenly Libra being a collateralized stablecoin stops making sense. Kind of like when the US Dollar no longer needed to be backed by gold since it was a strong enough currency/unit of financial measurement on its own. The US then got rid of the gold standard and has since saved itself untold money in custodial expenses they would have been paying to hold all that gold. > The Association would never do this for the Libra however since it is literally how they are funding their own operation. Even if it's in the best interest of all Libra users, the centralized governance association with all of the authority to make this improvement would choose not to because it's not in their best interest to do so. > There's no leap of imagination there - it's just how power and incentives work. Your basing this argument on the fractional reserve monetary policy that the libra association is hedging against. I believe we are moving towards a world in which global currencies become the norm. There will be 2 types of global currencies, corporate currencies and decentralized currencies, aka Libra and Bitcoin. Both forms will have to have a mechanism that prevents inflation, Libra will do that by being fully backed, Bitcoin does that through Nakamoto consensus. With digital currencies it becomes possible to move your entire "cash" holdings in a matter of minutes, so a fixed supply currency like Bitcoin insures that Libra will never dilute it's supply because the barrier to exit the currency is so low. In democratic countries like the US the mechanic that prevents massive inflation is mostly voters' influence over the federal reserve. Of course it isn't perfect the dollar has been inflated ~300% since leaving the gold standard. With corporate global currencies we don't have such voting powers.
  - carleverett 7y ago
    I don't think Libra's collateralization is a hedge against fractional reserve monetary policy, I think it's just Facebook's way of ensuring consumer confidence that a Libra is actually worth something, and the most proven way to peg a stablecoin to a value. I don't think this is necessary in a mature crypto economy where digital currencies are being used more than fiat currencies. I agree though that crypto monetary policy will play a huge role in the future though, and in the case of Libra, policy will be decided by the Libra Association. All I'm saying is that the Libra Association is not necessarily the best group to be making those decisions because collateralization is how they're funded. The US Fed doesn't have that same conflict of interest... they're paid by US taxes regardless of how their decisions turn out.

by bhupy 7y ago

archenary 7y ago

The author explained this (quoted below). Even though FB doesn't control Libra (protocol), they do own Calibra (digital wallet). If Libra takes off, Calibra stands a good chance of becoming the default way of transacting in Libra. FB then becomes the de facto leader and holds outsized influence over the direction of the project/industry, much like Gmail/email, Chrome/web and Google/web search. > And this is when this bet would pay off for Facebook (and the second point I missed in my earlier analysis): the implication that digital currencies will do for money what the Internet did for information is that the very long-term trend will be towards centralization around Aggregators. When there is no friction, control shifts from gatekeepers controlling supply to Aggregators controlling demand. To that end, by pioneering Libra, building what will almost certainly be the first wallet for the currency, and bringing to bear its unmatched network for facilitating payments, Facebook is betting it will offer the best experience for digital currency flows, giving it power not by controlling Libra but rather by controlling the most users of Libra.

carleverett 7y ago

The white paper explicitly gives the Libra Association (i.e. Facebook and its partner validators) governance control over the cryptocurrency. Here's an easy scenario to imagine that shows how incentives would get misaligned: Facebook and the other validating nodes of Libra are financially compensated by interest from the collateral for Libra tokens. If Libra is successful in its mission, it will become a global currency that's stronger than the assets that underly its collateral. When this happens, suddenly Libra being a collateralized stablecoin stops making sense. Kind of like when the US Dollar no longer needed to be backed by gold since it was a strong enough currency/unit of financial measurement on its own. The US then got rid of the gold standard and has since saved itself untold money in custodial expenses they would have been paying to hold all that gold. The Association would never do this for the Libra however since it is literally how they are funding their own operation. Even if it's in the best interest of all Libra users, the centralized governance association with all of the authority to make this improvement would choose not to because it's not in their best interest to do so. There's no leap of imagination there - it's just how power and incentives work.

jpkiser 7y ago
> The white paper explicitly gives the Libra Association (i.e. Facebook and its partner validators) governance control over the cryptocurrency. > Here's an easy scenario to imagine that shows how incentives would get misaligned: Facebook and the other validating nodes of Libra are financially compensated by interest from the collateral for Libra tokens. If Libra is successful in its mission, it will become a global currency that's stronger than the assets that underly its collateral. > When this happens, suddenly Libra being a collateralized stablecoin stops making sense. Kind of like when the US Dollar no longer needed to be backed by gold since it was a strong enough currency/unit of financial measurement on its own. The US then got rid of the gold standard and has since saved itself untold money in custodial expenses they would have been paying to hold all that gold. > The Association would never do this for the Libra however since it is literally how they are funding their own operation. Even if it's in the best interest of all Libra users, the centralized governance association with all of the authority to make this improvement would choose not to because it's not in their best interest to do so. > There's no leap of imagination there - it's just how power and incentives work. Your basing this argument on the fractional reserve monetary policy that the libra association is hedging against. I believe we are moving towards a world in which global currencies become the norm. There will be 2 types of global currencies, corporate currencies and decentralized currencies, aka Libra and Bitcoin. Both forms will have to have a mechanism that prevents inflation, Libra will do that by being fully backed, Bitcoin does that through Nakamoto consensus. With digital currencies it becomes possible to move your entire "cash" holdings in a matter of minutes, so a fixed supply currency like Bitcoin insures that Libra will never dilute it's supply because the barrier to exit the currency is so low. In democratic countries like the US the mechanic that prevents massive inflation is mostly voters' influence over the federal reserve. Of course it isn't perfect the dollar has been inflated ~300% since leaving the gold standard. With corporate global currencies we don't have such voting powers.
- carleverett 7y ago
  I don't think Libra's collateralization is a hedge against fractional reserve monetary policy, I think it's just Facebook's way of ensuring consumer confidence that a Libra is actually worth something, and the most proven way to peg a stablecoin to a value. I don't think this is necessary in a mature crypto economy where digital currencies are being used more than fiat currencies. I agree though that crypto monetary policy will play a huge role in the future though, and in the case of Libra, policy will be decided by the Libra Association. All I'm saying is that the Libra Association is not necessarily the best group to be making those decisions because collateralization is how they're funded. The US Fed doesn't have that same conflict of interest... they're paid by US taxes regardless of how their decisions turn out.