8 ms·

Idk why this article is so high up here, it's not very good. - The article implies Facebook "already made money off Libra", that's false. That $270M goes to th

Idk why this article is so high up here, it's not very good. - The article implies Facebook "already made money off Libra", that's false. That $270M goes to the non-profit Libra Association in Switzerland, of which Facebook is 1 of 28 current members. They don't "get" that money, it's there to fund the Association's maintenance costs. - Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control. In both governance and validation, they have 1 vote of 28 (currently, the number is supposed to go to 100 by launch). Will Facebook have the largest deployed Libra wallet? Yes, at least initially. Can anybody make a Libra wallet? Yes. This isn't a data play, it's very clearly a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets that can only pay with cash right now the ability to pay online. That's a HUGE opportunity all on its own, they don't need our data to make this worth it if it works. How can they sell ads to people in emerging markets, Facebook's fastest growing userbase, if none of these people can buy the things they are advertising? Facebook doesn't need an ulterior motive to make a buttload of money off of this, if it works. I don't know why "experts" are looking for one. Edit: I originally said the initial $10M buy-in per member goes to the Libra Reserve, but that was in error. It goes to the Association to fund the non-profit itself. The Reserve will be funded by the initial on-ramp of users.

soulofmischief 7y ago
> This isn't a data play, it's very clearly a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets that can only pay with cash right now the ability to pay online Just like Facebook Zero was simply a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets with no internet access a way to use the internet and not just a way to use Facebook as the internet?
- carlosdp 7y ago
  No? Look, you can say things like that, but there is no evidence thus far to back up this being a data play, and every piece of evidence says it is exactly what they say it is. - Facebook wants to make more money, they stand to make the most money if this thing works they way they say it will. Surely we can trust their greed? - You don't need a Facebook account to use Libra. - The thing is built so Facebook doesn't have full control, enshrined in Swiss law and math.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    I'm using historical evidence by comparing this play to some of Facebook's more notorious previous plays, which overwhelmingly have been shown to be detrimental to the public good while simultaneously deploying Doublespeak in order to caress public opinion and limit public inquiry. Your bullet points all fail to recognize the threat that Facebook (consciously) poses to real alternative currencies which truly are based on altruism and decentralizing financial control. Facebook lifted every play from our book and used our own words against us in order to control the narrative and produce pointless bickering while they progress unhindered. This is evident from the core to the skin, with the most shining example being the name of the coin itself: "Libre coin". Remember the PATRIOT Act? Funny how that turned out have very little to do with true patriotism to the US. I don't mean (and don't wish to) start a conversation about US politics, I simply mean to illustrate my point with another notorious example.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      If I had to trust Facebook's word to trust Libra, I wouldn't. I don't have to though. I can trust Swiss non-profit corporate governance law, math, and the fact that keeping a secret between 28 (or 100+ soon) organizations, with many being non-profits, NGOs, and universities, whose interests do not have clear reason to align otherwise, has never been done before in history.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        This carefully sidestepped my main issue, in that Facebook is deliberately choking out currencies which are truly decentralized and in more visionary and technically capable hands, in order to further cement their influence (even if you can argue it's not "just theirs", it's orthogonal to the issue)
        carlosdp 7y ago
        Because it doesn't make much sense to me. Those truly decentralized currencies are choking out themselves with slow transaction speeds and high transaction fees all on their own. I think true decentralization is super interesting and I'd like to see it happen (I think, there's some unease for me still relative to fiat). I think Ethereum 2.0 with it's proof-of-stake and sharding to combat transaction speeds is super interesting, for example. Libra is an in-between that could bridge today to tomorrow for true decentralization.
drcode 7y ago
> Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control Well, the Libra documents are vague about timelines and how/if they plan to move to a "permissionless" system- Instead of saying "they do not have full control" you should qualify it to say that "their marketing materials claim that even if it launches with full FB control initially, they state that they hope to eventually transition to lower amounts of control."
- carlosdp 7y ago
  No, they do not have full control from the start. Even in the current permissioned model. The 28 (will be 100) member companies do (or rather a majority vote of them do). But Facebook itself will not have full control, from the start. This is really important and something the media keeps getting wrong. Facebook isn't dumb, they know no one will trust something they control right now, so they made it so they aren't the ones in control. They likely will be the biggest wallet app though, which is significant. But they still can't single-handedly change the rules of Libra, they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    Oh, you keep saying in your comments that Facebook isn't dumb. I agree. Facebook's leadership is smart. They know what they are doing. They just hope that most of us would be dumb enough to believe them.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      Don't have to believe them, the governance and cryptoconsensus in the whitepapers is enshrined in law and math, and in addition there are competitors in the Libra Association that would easily decry other members if they tried something to subvert the operation of the currency.
  - drcode 7y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a citation? Where does it concretely say that FB will not be in charge of the network when it first launches? The closest I can find is the lawyerly language written here [1] that sounds, on the face of it, purposely misleading: The sentence "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed on behalf of the association" only makes sense if rephrased as "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed BY FACEBOOK on behalf of the association" [1] https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association
tfha 7y ago
The 28 all need licenses from Facebook, which means Facebook retains the control. It's decentralization theatre, and the ulterior motive gets Facebook much closer to being it's own soveigrn superpower than it's stated objective
- carlosdp 7y ago
  They are already bought in as members in the Association, written in whatever bylaws for the Swiss non-profit. How does Facebook subvert that without violating Swiss law? And how do they control the currency when, by design (the source code for their implementation is open-source) they only have 1 vote in the consensus?
DanBC 7y ago
> How can they sell ads to people in emerging markets, Facebook's fastest growing userbase, if none of these people can buy the things they are advertising? https://trendwatching.com/trends/SACHET_MARKETING.htm https://trendwatching.com/trends/SACHET_MARKETING.htm > In Brazil, fast moving consumer goods giant Unilever sells Ala, a brand detergent created specifically to meet the needs of low-income consumers who want an affordable yet effective product for laundry that is often washed by hand in river water. In India, Unilever successfully markets Sunsil and Lux shampoo sachets sold in units of 2-4 dollar cents; Clinic All Clear anti-dandruff shampoo sachets at 2.5 rupees each; and 16 cent Rexona deodorant sticks. In Tanzania, Key soap is sold in small units for a few dollar cents. They'll sell it, they'll advertise it.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  I'm not saying you literally can't sell things in these countries, of course. I'm saying it has this massive barrier right now that creates a high threshold to entering and serving the market compared to the internet-enabled developed world, and that means less money for Facebook advertising in those areas at the moment than they could be having. More advertisers means more demand means price-per-ad goes up and makes them more money.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
If people can't buy things Facebook wants to advertise in certain markets, that sounds like an affordability problem more than anything. If Facebook is really trying to grow further, it certainly sounds like some bean counter's idea to go with "let's try and extract advertising revenue from people who have no money to spend", that is to say, it doesn't sound like it will end very well.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  No, it's a problem of how do you order the cool new toy being advertised to you on FB, online, if all you have is physical cash? You can't throw cash at your mobile phone (and 500m+ in these markets have internet and phones, and many have Facebook already).
  - pjc50 7y ago
    So .. how are people going to get Libra? I can see that they're trying to do an MPesa or Wechat pay thing here, but they still need an on ramp.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      You're absolutely right! This is basically trying to beat WeChat to these markets, but in a less-centralized way. These markets already have a lot of internet access and mobile phones, just not a lot of banking. This is Facebook's fastest growing market right now, by far [1]. The Facebook app (and Whatsapp) is the on-ramp, that's why this is a good play for them. They have early advantage, but not because they have control of the currency, they have control of the initial users. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-...
      - pjc50 7y ago
        But what is the last mile plan - you're standing in rural India with a phone and a rupee, how do you turn that into a libra?
CharlesW 7y ago
> This isn't a data play… Of course that's a significant (the most significant?) aspect of Libra for Facebook. Do you know much about their business model and history?
- carlosdp 7y ago
  So, if you use Facebook's wallet app, I'm sure they'll use that data for themselves, of course, as with everything on Facebook. But you DO NOT need a Facebook account to use Libra, and Facebook CANNOT reverse lookup what non-FB Libra account maps to whatever person. So it's not much more useful as a data play than Facebook's existing Payments play. This is a play for the 1.3 Billion + users that they are getting in droves in their userbase, but currently make them less money than people in first-world markets cause of this payments problem.
  - fuzzy2 7y ago
    > Facebook CANNOT reverse lookup what non-FB Libra account maps to whatever person Sure they can. They're already tracking non-members today. It's trivial to extend this to whatever Libra data they can get. Yes, it's not 100% certainty in most cases, but that doesn't make it less dangerous.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      It's far less trivial that you are implying, there's way less data about a Libra account on the ledger than there is on your web browser when you visit a page. But I'll grant that it's not impossible, just wayyyyy more expensive and more trouble than it's likely worth. Especially since most Libra users (at least at first) will already be using Facebook app or Whatsapp as their Libra wallet, which they can of course get data from.
bgilroy26 7y ago
This is a well-reasoned reply, but the reason anti-Libra sentiment is high is not a huge mystery. You even alluded to the reason in your final paragraph. It's people who are suspicious of Facebook management's ulterior motives, that is to say conspiracy-type thinking. The RFID technology that is widely deployed today was reaching wider adoption in the early 2000s and the AM radio conspiracy hosts I used to listen to for fun were spinning wild yarns about how RFID would be going underneath everyone's skin soon and everyone would be rounded up and put into camps. I think there's a subterranean truth hidden in the ravings of madmen. It is a frightening prospect to empower further the people at the top who make the most impactful decisions in our society. RFID and Libra both make the global economy more efficient and that puts more power in the hands of our financial overlords. Now, it is also the case that financial overlords spend more time worried about themselves and their families than they do trying to control individual people's lives and make them worse. So conspiracy theorists are wrong about the ultimate outcome of new technology, but I think their fears would be well served by distributing power as widely as practically possible. The principle of sharing power to put people's minds at ease is what you referred to in your second bullet point.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  I agree with you on the reasoning, and I absolutely believe that is why Facebook is doing it this way. They know people would never trust a currency soley backed by them to start, so they solved that problem from the get go. Now it's just a PR problem of everyone believing they are in full control, when they actually aren't.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    FWIW, Facebook for years also said that they care about our privacy. Now, in court, they argue that there's no expectation of privacy on Facebook. They are just now telling you what you want to hear but that's probat not what they will do.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      I don't disagree with you, Facebook should be trusted with a grain of salt when it comes to privacy right now. This isn't relevant to the Libra discussion, because of the way Libra is designed. You don't have to trust Facebook to trust Libra. They built it this way because they know we don't trust them right now.
naveen99 7y ago
developing markets probably also have less electronic medical records. maybe facebook can create a decentralized electronic medical records custodian for them too...
- carlosdp 7y ago
  I wouldn't support that myself. This particular problem, payments, I think is an ok thing to solve on a global level though, since it's the same everywhere basically, and they are involving NGOs and non-profits so there is buy-in from orgs that don't make profit and have good context into the real problems in emerging economies.
- spaced-out 7y ago
  Well, somebody should.
chrischen 7y ago
So... if this work this would essentially concentrate a lot of world market capital power in the hands of 100 multinational companies? Wouldn't this take away power from governments (especially small countries), which are the manifestation of the sovereignty and power of individual peoples'? This sounds like a an extremely bad version of what the TPP aimed to achieve.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  THAT is the real conversation we need to be having. My issue is everyone is talking about this being some secret data play or Facebook owning a currency instead. I agree that there are concerning attributes when talking about a world where fiat currency has a true global alternative (if Libra works).
- solotronics 7y ago
  This seems like a way for supra-national companies to arise like in cyberpunk fiction. I think Bitcoin was the beginning of the end for government controlled fiat currency even if most people have no idea how or why.
solotronics 7y ago
Even if Libra was blocked due to regulations in the US, Europe, Japan, and China it would still be a massive win.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  It absolutely would! The US, Europe, etc. aren't the big target for this thing, they would be the icing on the cake. I wouldn't count on it making it to China anytime soon though, WeChat and Alipay have that locked up and I doubt Libra makes it through the Chinese Firewall given China can't control it.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
> Facebook doesn't need an ulterior motive to make a buttload of money off of this, if it works. I don't know why "experts" are looking for one. I would guess that it's because Facebook is a company with a history of selling toxic things and trying to convince people that it's good for them. In this case, the question is essentially what it means to be one of the other 27 members. If the remaining 27 groups aren't free to take the currency in a direction that undermines Facebook's business, then they really don't counterbalance Facebook. If Facebook can unilaterally shut down the ecosystem, then the other members don't counterbalance Facebook. Etc. Every major cryptocurrency I'm aware of is essentially controlled by one or two entities. Even Bitcoin's development direction is controlled by a small number of companies, and the business goals of those companies influence what features Bitcoin supports.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  Well they have just 1 vote in the governing association, so if a majority validator nodes disagreed with Facebook, Facebook can't override. If it took off, unilaterally shutting down the ecosystem (or otherwise hurting it), in a scenario where they are market-place dominant (when it comes to Libra wallet users, which is likely at least early on) would hurt them the most. I get why Twitter users are looking for it, I don't get why people that present as experts are after reading the whitepapers. It's like they aren't actually reading them, or are just arbitrarily ignoring them for the clicks (gasp).
theorangejuice 7y ago
Just to note: the $270M is not for the reserve but for maintaining the network. The reserve will be created when people will on-ramp.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  Yep, you're right, I'll clarify!
thisisit 7y ago
> - Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control. In both governance and validation, they have 1 vote of 28 (currently, the number is supposed to go to 100 by launch). Will Facebook have the largest deployed Libra wallet? Yes, at least initially. Can anybody make a Libra wallet? Yes. The Ethereum hack and the subsequent actions have already put holes into the decentralized - no one controls anything - argument. In Ethereum's case we at least had two chains existing because everyone can run whatever chain they want. With Libra, a corporate product, you can bet that though it looks like Facebook doesn't have any significant influence, covertly they will control the largest vote share. If not, there is no point for them to build this product. > This isn't a data play, it's very clearly a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets that can only pay with cash right now the ability to pay online. The rise of mobile banking through e-wallets like WeChat Pay, upcoming Whatsapp Pay, Google Pay, Paytm etc are already breaking down the barriers to banking. People often don't need banking accounts to use these ewallet products.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  > If not, there is no point for them to build this product. The second point you mentioned literally disproves this point. There's a massive opportunity for making money if Libra works exactly like they say it does. Google Pay and friends can't move into emerging markets because they depend on banking infrastructure that doesn't exist there. WeChat maybe could, but that's a scary thought, so I'm glad this alternative will exist.
  - thisisit 7y ago
    First of all, I like that you skirted around the fact that the point made was about Facebook's control and not the product's existence. Still, how does it disprove the point? Most ewallets are designed to solve the fact that there is no banking infrastructure in developing countries. Libra will still need the same infrastructure to get people to buy those coins. > WeChat maybe could, but that's a scary thought, so I'm glad this alternative will exist. People who use WeChat everyday don't care. It seems sometimes SV fails to understand what they care about and what their customers want are two different things.

soulofmischief 7y ago

> This isn't a data play, it's very clearly a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets that can only pay with cash right now the ability to pay online Just like Facebook Zero was simply a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets with no internet access a way to use the internet and not just a way to use Facebook as the internet?

carlosdp 7y ago
No? Look, you can say things like that, but there is no evidence thus far to back up this being a data play, and every piece of evidence says it is exactly what they say it is. - Facebook wants to make more money, they stand to make the most money if this thing works they way they say it will. Surely we can trust their greed? - You don't need a Facebook account to use Libra. - The thing is built so Facebook doesn't have full control, enshrined in Swiss law and math.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I'm using historical evidence by comparing this play to some of Facebook's more notorious previous plays, which overwhelmingly have been shown to be detrimental to the public good while simultaneously deploying Doublespeak in order to caress public opinion and limit public inquiry. Your bullet points all fail to recognize the threat that Facebook (consciously) poses to real alternative currencies which truly are based on altruism and decentralizing financial control. Facebook lifted every play from our book and used our own words against us in order to control the narrative and produce pointless bickering while they progress unhindered. This is evident from the core to the skin, with the most shining example being the name of the coin itself: "Libre coin". Remember the PATRIOT Act? Funny how that turned out have very little to do with true patriotism to the US. I don't mean (and don't wish to) start a conversation about US politics, I simply mean to illustrate my point with another notorious example.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    If I had to trust Facebook's word to trust Libra, I wouldn't. I don't have to though. I can trust Swiss non-profit corporate governance law, math, and the fact that keeping a secret between 28 (or 100+ soon) organizations, with many being non-profits, NGOs, and universities, whose interests do not have clear reason to align otherwise, has never been done before in history.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      This carefully sidestepped my main issue, in that Facebook is deliberately choking out currencies which are truly decentralized and in more visionary and technically capable hands, in order to further cement their influence (even if you can argue it's not "just theirs", it's orthogonal to the issue)
      - carlosdp 7y ago
        Because it doesn't make much sense to me. Those truly decentralized currencies are choking out themselves with slow transaction speeds and high transaction fees all on their own. I think true decentralization is super interesting and I'd like to see it happen (I think, there's some unease for me still relative to fiat). I think Ethereum 2.0 with it's proof-of-stake and sharding to combat transaction speeds is super interesting, for example. Libra is an in-between that could bridge today to tomorrow for true decentralization.

drcode 7y ago

> Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control Well, the Libra documents are vague about timelines and how/if they plan to move to a "permissionless" system- Instead of saying "they do not have full control" you should qualify it to say that "their marketing materials claim that even if it launches with full FB control initially, they state that they hope to eventually transition to lower amounts of control."

carlosdp 7y ago
No, they do not have full control from the start. Even in the current permissioned model. The 28 (will be 100) member companies do (or rather a majority vote of them do). But Facebook itself will not have full control, from the start. This is really important and something the media keeps getting wrong. Facebook isn't dumb, they know no one will trust something they control right now, so they made it so they aren't the ones in control. They likely will be the biggest wallet app though, which is significant. But they still can't single-handedly change the rules of Libra, they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that.
- dannyr 7y ago
  Oh, you keep saying in your comments that Facebook isn't dumb. I agree. Facebook's leadership is smart. They know what they are doing. They just hope that most of us would be dumb enough to believe them.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    Don't have to believe them, the governance and cryptoconsensus in the whitepapers is enshrined in law and math, and in addition there are competitors in the Libra Association that would easily decry other members if they tried something to subvert the operation of the currency.
- drcode 7y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a citation? Where does it concretely say that FB will not be in charge of the network when it first launches? The closest I can find is the lawyerly language written here [1] that sounds, on the face of it, purposely misleading: The sentence "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed on behalf of the association" only makes sense if rephrased as "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed BY FACEBOOK on behalf of the association" [1] https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association

tfha 7y ago

The 28 all need licenses from Facebook, which means Facebook retains the control. It's decentralization theatre, and the ulterior motive gets Facebook much closer to being it's own soveigrn superpower than it's stated objective

carlosdp 7y ago
They are already bought in as members in the Association, written in whatever bylaws for the Swiss non-profit. How does Facebook subvert that without violating Swiss law? And how do they control the currency when, by design (the source code for their implementation is open-source) they only have 1 vote in the consensus?

DanBC 7y ago

> How can they sell ads to people in emerging markets, Facebook's fastest growing userbase, if none of these people can buy the things they are advertising? https://trendwatching.com/trends/SACHET_MARKETING.htm https://trendwatching.com/trends/SACHET_MARKETING.htm > In Brazil, fast moving consumer goods giant Unilever sells Ala, a brand detergent created specifically to meet the needs of low-income consumers who want an affordable yet effective product for laundry that is often washed by hand in river water. In India, Unilever successfully markets Sunsil and Lux shampoo sachets sold in units of 2-4 dollar cents; Clinic All Clear anti-dandruff shampoo sachets at 2.5 rupees each; and 16 cent Rexona deodorant sticks. In Tanzania, Key soap is sold in small units for a few dollar cents. They'll sell it, they'll advertise it.

carlosdp 7y ago
I'm not saying you literally can't sell things in these countries, of course. I'm saying it has this massive barrier right now that creates a high threshold to entering and serving the market compared to the internet-enabled developed world, and that means less money for Facebook advertising in those areas at the moment than they could be having. More advertisers means more demand means price-per-ad goes up and makes them more money.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

If people can't buy things Facebook wants to advertise in certain markets, that sounds like an affordability problem more than anything. If Facebook is really trying to grow further, it certainly sounds like some bean counter's idea to go with "let's try and extract advertising revenue from people who have no money to spend", that is to say, it doesn't sound like it will end very well.

carlosdp 7y ago
No, it's a problem of how do you order the cool new toy being advertised to you on FB, online, if all you have is physical cash? You can't throw cash at your mobile phone (and 500m+ in these markets have internet and phones, and many have Facebook already).
- pjc50 7y ago
  So .. how are people going to get Libra? I can see that they're trying to do an MPesa or Wechat pay thing here, but they still need an on ramp.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    You're absolutely right! This is basically trying to beat WeChat to these markets, but in a less-centralized way. These markets already have a lot of internet access and mobile phones, just not a lot of banking. This is Facebook's fastest growing market right now, by far [1]. The Facebook app (and Whatsapp) is the on-ramp, that's why this is a good play for them. They have early advantage, but not because they have control of the currency, they have control of the initial users. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-...
    - pjc50 7y ago
      But what is the last mile plan - you're standing in rural India with a phone and a rupee, how do you turn that into a libra?

CharlesW 7y ago

> This isn't a data play… Of course that's a significant (the most significant?) aspect of Libra for Facebook. Do you know much about their business model and history?

carlosdp 7y ago
So, if you use Facebook's wallet app, I'm sure they'll use that data for themselves, of course, as with everything on Facebook. But you DO NOT need a Facebook account to use Libra, and Facebook CANNOT reverse lookup what non-FB Libra account maps to whatever person. So it's not much more useful as a data play than Facebook's existing Payments play. This is a play for the 1.3 Billion + users that they are getting in droves in their userbase, but currently make them less money than people in first-world markets cause of this payments problem.
- fuzzy2 7y ago
  > Facebook CANNOT reverse lookup what non-FB Libra account maps to whatever person Sure they can. They're already tracking non-members today. It's trivial to extend this to whatever Libra data they can get. Yes, it's not 100% certainty in most cases, but that doesn't make it less dangerous.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    It's far less trivial that you are implying, there's way less data about a Libra account on the ledger than there is on your web browser when you visit a page. But I'll grant that it's not impossible, just wayyyyy more expensive and more trouble than it's likely worth. Especially since most Libra users (at least at first) will already be using Facebook app or Whatsapp as their Libra wallet, which they can of course get data from.

bgilroy26 7y ago

This is a well-reasoned reply, but the reason anti-Libra sentiment is high is not a huge mystery. You even alluded to the reason in your final paragraph. It's people who are suspicious of Facebook management's ulterior motives, that is to say conspiracy-type thinking. The RFID technology that is widely deployed today was reaching wider adoption in the early 2000s and the AM radio conspiracy hosts I used to listen to for fun were spinning wild yarns about how RFID would be going underneath everyone's skin soon and everyone would be rounded up and put into camps. I think there's a subterranean truth hidden in the ravings of madmen. It is a frightening prospect to empower further the people at the top who make the most impactful decisions in our society. RFID and Libra both make the global economy more efficient and that puts more power in the hands of our financial overlords. Now, it is also the case that financial overlords spend more time worried about themselves and their families than they do trying to control individual people's lives and make them worse. So conspiracy theorists are wrong about the ultimate outcome of new technology, but I think their fears would be well served by distributing power as widely as practically possible. The principle of sharing power to put people's minds at ease is what you referred to in your second bullet point.

carlosdp 7y ago
I agree with you on the reasoning, and I absolutely believe that is why Facebook is doing it this way. They know people would never trust a currency soley backed by them to start, so they solved that problem from the get go. Now it's just a PR problem of everyone believing they are in full control, when they actually aren't.
- dannyr 7y ago
  FWIW, Facebook for years also said that they care about our privacy. Now, in court, they argue that there's no expectation of privacy on Facebook. They are just now telling you what you want to hear but that's probat not what they will do.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    I don't disagree with you, Facebook should be trusted with a grain of salt when it comes to privacy right now. This isn't relevant to the Libra discussion, because of the way Libra is designed. You don't have to trust Facebook to trust Libra. They built it this way because they know we don't trust them right now.

naveen99 7y ago

developing markets probably also have less electronic medical records. maybe facebook can create a decentralized electronic medical records custodian for them too...

carlosdp 7y ago
I wouldn't support that myself. This particular problem, payments, I think is an ok thing to solve on a global level though, since it's the same everywhere basically, and they are involving NGOs and non-profits so there is buy-in from orgs that don't make profit and have good context into the real problems in emerging economies.
spaced-out 7y ago
Well, somebody should.

chrischen 7y ago

So... if this work this would essentially concentrate a lot of world market capital power in the hands of 100 multinational companies? Wouldn't this take away power from governments (especially small countries), which are the manifestation of the sovereignty and power of individual peoples'? This sounds like a an extremely bad version of what the TPP aimed to achieve.

carlosdp 7y ago
THAT is the real conversation we need to be having. My issue is everyone is talking about this being some secret data play or Facebook owning a currency instead. I agree that there are concerning attributes when talking about a world where fiat currency has a true global alternative (if Libra works).
solotronics 7y ago
This seems like a way for supra-national companies to arise like in cyberpunk fiction. I think Bitcoin was the beginning of the end for government controlled fiat currency even if most people have no idea how or why.

solotronics 7y ago

Even if Libra was blocked due to regulations in the US, Europe, Japan, and China it would still be a massive win.

carlosdp 7y ago
It absolutely would! The US, Europe, etc. aren't the big target for this thing, they would be the icing on the cake. I wouldn't count on it making it to China anytime soon though, WeChat and Alipay have that locked up and I doubt Libra makes it through the Chinese Firewall given China can't control it.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

> Facebook doesn't need an ulterior motive to make a buttload of money off of this, if it works. I don't know why "experts" are looking for one. I would guess that it's because Facebook is a company with a history of selling toxic things and trying to convince people that it's good for them. In this case, the question is essentially what it means to be one of the other 27 members. If the remaining 27 groups aren't free to take the currency in a direction that undermines Facebook's business, then they really don't counterbalance Facebook. If Facebook can unilaterally shut down the ecosystem, then the other members don't counterbalance Facebook. Etc. Every major cryptocurrency I'm aware of is essentially controlled by one or two entities. Even Bitcoin's development direction is controlled by a small number of companies, and the business goals of those companies influence what features Bitcoin supports.

carlosdp 7y ago
Well they have just 1 vote in the governing association, so if a majority validator nodes disagreed with Facebook, Facebook can't override. If it took off, unilaterally shutting down the ecosystem (or otherwise hurting it), in a scenario where they are market-place dominant (when it comes to Libra wallet users, which is likely at least early on) would hurt them the most. I get why Twitter users are looking for it, I don't get why people that present as experts are after reading the whitepapers. It's like they aren't actually reading them, or are just arbitrarily ignoring them for the clicks (gasp).

theorangejuice 7y ago

Just to note: the $270M is not for the reserve but for maintaining the network. The reserve will be created when people will on-ramp.

carlosdp 7y ago
Yep, you're right, I'll clarify!

thisisit 7y ago

> - Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control. In both governance and validation, they have 1 vote of 28 (currently, the number is supposed to go to 100 by launch). Will Facebook have the largest deployed Libra wallet? Yes, at least initially. Can anybody make a Libra wallet? Yes. The Ethereum hack and the subsequent actions have already put holes into the decentralized - no one controls anything - argument. In Ethereum's case we at least had two chains existing because everyone can run whatever chain they want. With Libra, a corporate product, you can bet that though it looks like Facebook doesn't have any significant influence, covertly they will control the largest vote share. If not, there is no point for them to build this product. > This isn't a data play, it's very clearly a play at getting a bunch of people in developing markets that can only pay with cash right now the ability to pay online. The rise of mobile banking through e-wallets like WeChat Pay, upcoming Whatsapp Pay, Google Pay, Paytm etc are already breaking down the barriers to banking. People often don't need banking accounts to use these ewallet products.

carlosdp 7y ago
> If not, there is no point for them to build this product. The second point you mentioned literally disproves this point. There's a massive opportunity for making money if Libra works exactly like they say it does. Google Pay and friends can't move into emerging markets because they depend on banking infrastructure that doesn't exist there. WeChat maybe could, but that's a scary thought, so I'm glad this alternative will exist.
- thisisit 7y ago
  First of all, I like that you skirted around the fact that the point made was about Facebook's control and not the product's existence. Still, how does it disprove the point? Most ewallets are designed to solve the fact that there is no banking infrastructure in developing countries. Libra will still need the same infrastructure to get people to buy those coins. > WeChat maybe could, but that's a scary thought, so I'm glad this alternative will exist. People who use WeChat everyday don't care. It seems sometimes SV fails to understand what they care about and what their customers want are two different things.