4 ms·

I doubt they were ever TRULY enthusiastic about this project, since its premise cuts into their primary bread-and-butter legacy business. I suspect their invol

I doubt they were ever TRULY enthusiastic about this project, since its premise cuts into their primary bread-and-butter legacy business. I suspect their involvment was almost more of a "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" sort of thing. The idea that it's better to be involved than shut out. But if I were them, I would be low-key thrilled that this is falling apart.

ilaksh 7y ago
The primary threat for payment processors and fiat currency is real cryptocurrency. Libra is a fake cryptocurrency that the payment processors and governments hoped would help to hold off the cryptocurrencies for a few extra years. It would have allowed the payment processors to continue to profit from transactions and made it practical for governments to control payments and wallets. They are probably pulling out for two reasons. One, having all of the payment processors involved makes it too obvious that it's not actually a cryptocurrency. Two, it's dead in the water, and to even have a slight hope of reviving it, that association with payment processors needs to go away. If they are able to resurrect it, expect the companies to come back down the line.
- StevePerkins 7y ago
  I'm sorry. Sometimes goldbugs, and the crypto hardcore, get pretty far out there on the edge. It can be confusing whether something is an interesting point, worthy of discussion... or just outright "alternative reality", like climate change denial, that you should walk away from. Are you actually saying that: 1. The payment processors joined this consortium to AVOID helping crytocurrencies catch on in the mainstream? 2. The payment processors are lying about pulling out. Facebook secretly pushed them out, because Facebook wants to start over with a more "pure" cryptocurrency?
  - ilaksh 7y ago
    1. Look into the technical details carefully. Its not really a cryptocurrency except on the surface. Core aspects of the design absolutely preclude any truly distributed operation. Everything goes through a small number of nodes. It should be obvious that payment processors do not want cryptocurrencies to catch on. I know many people will never understand this, but the true purpose of cryptocurrency is to act as digital cash. This makes the payment processor business model obsolete. 2. My theory is that Visa et al voluntarily left for the time being because they could see that it was not going to work, and especially was not going to work with them sponsoring it. Facebook is never going to try for a real cryptocurrency, the model will stay the same, but if the project has any chance of moving forward (at this point it is a very slim chance) then it needs to disassociate at least temporarily from the payment processors. The technical parts will not actually become decentralized. Just the bad marketing from Visa and friends will go away for awhile. It seems like there is a strong possibility that this particular project is going to be completely killed though anyway. One more thing about the "alternative reality". Yes, my worldview is obviously very different from yours. But maybe if you consider carefully you may realize that your worldview may not be 100% accurate in all ways.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      I think that the vast majority of the public would be much more likely to switch to a currency with Visa and Mastercard's involvement than a currency which doesn't have them on board. I am honestly wondering which audience you think was losing confidence in this project because of Visa et al.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      > Yes, my worldview is obviously very different from yours. There's worldview, and then there's confidently stating speculative mind-reading as fact. Like when you say that the true reason behind payment processors and governments backing Libra was to "hold off the cryptocurrencies for a few extra years." Can you source your claim? Or any of your theories? Is this something you just 'know' to be true? The cryptocurrency community is rife with people describing in exact detail the thinking and motivation of players behind the scenes, but often it turns out to be just "Here's what I am imagining".
      - ilaksh 7y ago
        That's true it's speculation and I should have qualified it as such. The reason I felt motivated to state it that way though is because it seems so obvious to me that the explanations coming from these companies are marketing that contradict the technical reality. As far as other cryptocurrency people, there are a lot of people who think very differently and everyone has their own view, so maybe the negative generalizations should be tempered. But you got your generalization in there so what the heck, here is mine. The mainstream community is rife with people who accept marketing and propaganda as truth, but often it turns out to be just "bullshit" and companies or governments were actually just doing selfish things to help themselves strategically.

ilaksh 7y ago

The primary threat for payment processors and fiat currency is real cryptocurrency. Libra is a fake cryptocurrency that the payment processors and governments hoped would help to hold off the cryptocurrencies for a few extra years. It would have allowed the payment processors to continue to profit from transactions and made it practical for governments to control payments and wallets. They are probably pulling out for two reasons. One, having all of the payment processors involved makes it too obvious that it's not actually a cryptocurrency. Two, it's dead in the water, and to even have a slight hope of reviving it, that association with payment processors needs to go away. If they are able to resurrect it, expect the companies to come back down the line.

StevePerkins 7y ago
I'm sorry. Sometimes goldbugs, and the crypto hardcore, get pretty far out there on the edge. It can be confusing whether something is an interesting point, worthy of discussion... or just outright "alternative reality", like climate change denial, that you should walk away from. Are you actually saying that: 1. The payment processors joined this consortium to AVOID helping crytocurrencies catch on in the mainstream? 2. The payment processors are lying about pulling out. Facebook secretly pushed them out, because Facebook wants to start over with a more "pure" cryptocurrency?
- ilaksh 7y ago
  1. Look into the technical details carefully. Its not really a cryptocurrency except on the surface. Core aspects of the design absolutely preclude any truly distributed operation. Everything goes through a small number of nodes. It should be obvious that payment processors do not want cryptocurrencies to catch on. I know many people will never understand this, but the true purpose of cryptocurrency is to act as digital cash. This makes the payment processor business model obsolete. 2. My theory is that Visa et al voluntarily left for the time being because they could see that it was not going to work, and especially was not going to work with them sponsoring it. Facebook is never going to try for a real cryptocurrency, the model will stay the same, but if the project has any chance of moving forward (at this point it is a very slim chance) then it needs to disassociate at least temporarily from the payment processors. The technical parts will not actually become decentralized. Just the bad marketing from Visa and friends will go away for awhile. It seems like there is a strong possibility that this particular project is going to be completely killed though anyway. One more thing about the "alternative reality". Yes, my worldview is obviously very different from yours. But maybe if you consider carefully you may realize that your worldview may not be 100% accurate in all ways.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    I think that the vast majority of the public would be much more likely to switch to a currency with Visa and Mastercard's involvement than a currency which doesn't have them on board. I am honestly wondering which audience you think was losing confidence in this project because of Visa et al.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    > Yes, my worldview is obviously very different from yours. There's worldview, and then there's confidently stating speculative mind-reading as fact. Like when you say that the true reason behind payment processors and governments backing Libra was to "hold off the cryptocurrencies for a few extra years." Can you source your claim? Or any of your theories? Is this something you just 'know' to be true? The cryptocurrency community is rife with people describing in exact detail the thinking and motivation of players behind the scenes, but often it turns out to be just "Here's what I am imagining".
    - ilaksh 7y ago
      That's true it's speculation and I should have qualified it as such. The reason I felt motivated to state it that way though is because it seems so obvious to me that the explanations coming from these companies are marketing that contradict the technical reality. As far as other cryptocurrency people, there are a lot of people who think very differently and everyone has their own view, so maybe the negative generalizations should be tempered. But you got your generalization in there so what the heck, here is mine. The mainstream community is rife with people who accept marketing and propaganda as truth, but often it turns out to be just "bullshit" and companies or governments were actually just doing selfish things to help themselves strategically.