8 ms·
There was absolutely no reason for this to project to exist. The only feature of digital currencies that make some of them interesting is that they are fully di
by jtms 7y ago
There was absolutely no reason for this to project to exist. The only feature of digital currencies that make some of them interesting is that they are fully distributed and based on absolutely zero trust of other users on the network. What Facebook was trying to do here was take something that could be implemented in a standard centralized database, stick some marketing on it, and try to ride a hype wave that has since (rightfully) died down.
- osrec 7y agoAbsolutely. My definition of a decentralised system is not one that's controlled by a handful of entities...
- hinkley 7y agoAnd yet, a lot of people have been confused into thinking things like The Cloud are decentralized. I’m not sure how this got broken, but a few powerful companies seem to be running with it.
- core-questions 7y agoWell, relative to the tiny datacenter you might have for an office, it's "decentralized"... but yes, only in a marketing sense.
- SI_Rob 7y agoThe bar for grasping decentralization fatally flexible and bends very low. As in "If you can't immediately name the individual who has the majority of leverage over the operation of X, then X is decentralized" low. It's little more than an incantation at this point; the only proven implementation is as a sort of verbal ink blot test for identifying marks.
- jeromebaek 7y agoSorry, who in their right mind thinks the Cloud is decentralized? It is literally the opposite.
- machawinka 7y agoIt is descentralized across corporations. Pretty much a cartel.
- southerndrift 7y agoHow else can facebook prevent people from moving on to wechat with its internal payment system? Why should people stick to facebook if wechat can offer a whole bunch of services that need (micro) transactions?
- Nydhal 7y agoChina
- cwkoss 7y agoThey could just get a banking license and do a stored value wallet denominated in an existing currency.
- vertex-four 7y agoFacebook can have an internal payment system that uses local currencies. There is no reason it needs to create its own currency, except as a power grab. Building out a Paypal clone is fine enough.
- lonelappde 7y agoIt's not a power grab, it's an attempt to avoid taxes and regulation, same as all the game companies do with virtual currency.
- repolfx 7y agoHow can it be a power grab, Libra was going to be at least an open system with it's own wallet protocols and market for implementations. A WeChat style system would be totally closed from the ground up.
- vertex-four 7y agoNo, it was going to be open to partners that Facebook picks and chooses. It was very specifically not to be a fully decentralised blockchain, which essentially means it's actually a big permissioned database, which the database owners get to control.
- novok 7y agoIt wasn’t implemented as a proof of work currency, but as a small distributed database. At its core it’s a multicurrency fiat currency fund that you can trade ownership units of, like an ETF. But internationally on no specific stock exchange. And when you buy units of it, the currency you put into it gets added to the fund, so it isnt dilutive. It’s basically creating a global currency out of the worlds fiat currencies, like banks did with gold long time ago. It’s quite clever and I could see the economic value and issues of something like market created globobucks.
- bobthepanda 7y agoThe premise is alright until you realize that Facebook and friends couldn't possibly have enough capital to be a "bank of last resort", and financial crises without one have historically just spun out of control and wrecked economies for extended periods of time.
- throwaway1777 7y agoThe point is there doesn’t need to be a bank of last resort with libra.
- bobthepanda 7y agoWhat about it indicates that? Libra is backed by a basket of currencies or investments designed to spread risk around, which is a great idea unless a huge chunk goes belly up at the same time. And then what? We repeat the subprime mortgage crisis, where people also thought that there would never be mass defaults across the system at the same time?
- throwaway1777 7y agoLibra is not a bank, it’s a currency that’s pegged to other currencies. The asset backing is only because the initial value has to come from somewhere. It can’t default. It could decrease in value, but there’s no debt or counter party risk.