21–30 of 81 posts
I don't see how any government, and especially the US government, agrees to any of that anytime soon.
>“Because Facebook is already in the hands of over a quarter of the world’s population, it is imperative that Facebook and its partners immediately cease implementation plans until regulators and Congress have an opportunity to examine these risks and take action,” the letter says. We're scared that you have the ability to disintermediate our control of the financial system just like you did to publishers.
Forced to choose between Facebook and a government controlling anything, I'd rather have the government at the wheel. For me this is a "devil I know" type of thing.
Dan Larimer's EOS functions very similar to Libra, with Delegated Proof of Stake. EOS' DPOS encountered much of the same criticisms around centralization when it was launched, but many people swear by it just because it is good enough. Delegates ("block producers") do reverse transactions on EOS and they consider it a feature. EOS is not immutable, but it does have faster transaction capacity than incumbent chains li…
This gets it all wrong, IMHO. An "official ask" rather than actual laws or regulations comes across as silly, self-serving and grandstanding -- although it is in Facebook's self-interest to work with Congress. The problem here is the potential for uncompetitive dominance -- just like Google or Apple can unfairly favor their own products in Search or apps, what does it mean for Facebook to favor or only allow its own…
Does Libra stand to cannibalize that margin/business model over night?
> This is why we believe in and are committed to a collaborative process with regulators, central banks, and lawmakers to ensure that Libra helps with the kinds of issues that the existing financial system has been fighting, notably around money laundering, terrorism financing, and more. This was inevitable, but it's surprising to see them acknowledge it. > combined with the ability for law enforcement and regulators…
I think you might be thinking of specific banks and shell company schemes in Panama and not what most people would describe as a regular bank.
This is not surprising. The minute Libra starts operating it becomes the main money laundering tool in the world. Depending on how it's implemented it could easily topple the economies of smaller countries, and significantly increase funding for terrorist organizations and garden variety criminals. I don't see how any government, and especially the US government, agrees to any of that anytime soon.
HSBC was recently fined for laundering billions for the cartels. This activity happens on an industrial scale and a Facebook cryptocurrency isn't needed for these groups to move money.
Could the government effectively regulate/curtail libra by essentially telling Facebook's financial partners like Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe, etc that they risk losing their licenses by promoting/handling Libra?
Visa wouldn’t be the biggest loser in that scenario, the politicians/regulators would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forced to choose between Facebook and a government controlling anything, I'd rather have the government at the wheel. For me this is a "devil I know" type of thing.
I’m probably reading too much into your comment, but there’s a big difference between “a” government and “the” government depending on where you live. I don’t trust Facebook at all, but I trust them more than I trust certain governments around the world. At least they don’t have a military. Sometimes assholes without guns are better to have in charge than anyone with guns.