I am not affiliated with Libra in any way, but I cannot agree with this article. Let me respond point by point. Libra’s byzantine tolerance on a permissioned n

I am not affiliated with Libra in any way, but I cannot agree with this article. Let me respond point by point. Libra’s byzantine tolerance on a permissioned network is an incoherent design. The criticism here is that byzantine tolerance is not needed, when every participant is a regulated multinational company. But it certainly isn't a bad thing to have byzantine tolerance. Maybe a set of the regulated multinational companies will have backdoors put in place by a malicious entity - that has certainly happened before. The downside of byzantine tolerance is the computational overhead. Yes, there is going to be a cost in throughput. But it just doesn't make sense for Libra to optimize for transactions-per-second at this point. If they run into scaling problems, then they can optimize. Right now they are quite far away from having scaling problems. Libra has no transaction privacy. It's the same privacy level as Bitcoin. Transactions are public, endpoint identities are trackable but don't have real identities attached. You can say it isn't a good set of tradeoffs for a cryptocurrency to be pseudo-anonymous. But it doesn't make the system "architecturally unsound". Libra HotStuff BFT is not capable of achieving the throughput necessary for a payment rail. Again, it doesn't make sense to criticize Libra at this point for not being able to achieve tens of thousands of transactions per second. If they start running into scaling problems, they can work on all sorts of extensions and improvements then. Libra’s Move language is not sound. The criticisms here really boil down to "Move needs more work". It isn't fundamentally unsound, it just needs more work. The claims seem to reduce to nothing more than handwaving and marketing rather than actual proof. This is an alarming position for a language engineering project which expects the public to trust it to handle billions of dollars. Okay, well don't go putting a billion dollars in a Move smart contract tomorrow. Programming languages, and especially programming language documentation, can be improved a lot over time. ... There's more in the article, but really, it reads like a rant, where the author is so biased by their hatred of Facebook that they think every little thing that Libra does is wrong. IMO, the core mistake behind Libra is assuming that regulators would be okay with it, because it isn't very different from other permissioned cryptocurrencies, like Stellar. Instead, regulators have been quite opposed to it because Facebook is behind it, even when technologically it isn't very unique. It is certainly not "architecturally unsound".