> In May, the leaders of the Senate Banking Committee wrote to Facebook seeking information on rumors of its cryptocurrency project, and how it would protect consumer information.
Perhaps Facebook rushed an announcement because of the government inquiry.
Presumably Facebook could just reply with "our engineers are always trying out new ideas, but until they're announced, no detail is final, and we don't discuss possible future projects externally"
> we don't discuss possible future projects externally
There's a limit to how much you can "no comment" your way through a congressional hearing; it would be obvious that this meant that Facebook were working on such a thing, and would increase the likelihood of it getting pre-emptively banned.
I'm writing my representatives about Libra, and I would urge others to do the same. I think that it's an incredibly bad idea, even if you take Facebook out of the picture. A supra-national currency controlled by a consortium of private companies? Hell no, no matter what "safeties" you build into the governing association.
Privately-issued currencies are a thing, but they tend to be localized, making Libra qualitatively different. And Libra is in no way comparable to payment processors, because those companies don't control the underlying value of the scrip.
The USG is by no means perfect, but I'd rather stick with the Fed than give the Libra association control over the world's currencies.
Edit: Imagine how incongruous the phrase "consumers can vote with their wallets" becomes when their wallets are owned by private companies.
From my perspective, the undesirable scenario would be Libra supplanting Government-issued currencies. As I added in my edit, the idea that companies are moderated by consumer choice breaks down when the companies control the means of transaction. Company towns with company currency used to be a thing, and not a good thing.
One undesirable scenario that comes to mind is the Facebook et al consortium deciding to break the peg after achieving a large balance of credits. As near as I can tell, there is nothing stopping them from de-valuing the currency at a whim in the interest of reaping a short term profit.
Such things happen all the time with reward points/airline miles/etc.
It'd be ironic if this dumb project was the last straw that triggered regulators finally getting tough with Facebook. Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs!
16 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 47.9 ms ] threadIf the product was already released and loved my millions of voters, the government would be far more limited in their ability to shut it down.
They should have done a simultaneous 'announce and launch'.
> In May, the leaders of the Senate Banking Committee wrote to Facebook seeking information on rumors of its cryptocurrency project, and how it would protect consumer information.
Perhaps Facebook rushed an announcement because of the government inquiry.
There's a limit to how much you can "no comment" your way through a congressional hearing; it would be obvious that this meant that Facebook were working on such a thing, and would increase the likelihood of it getting pre-emptively banned.
Privately-issued currencies are a thing, but they tend to be localized, making Libra qualitatively different. And Libra is in no way comparable to payment processors, because those companies don't control the underlying value of the scrip.
The USG is by no means perfect, but I'd rather stick with the Fed than give the Libra association control over the world's currencies.
Edit: Imagine how incongruous the phrase "consumers can vote with their wallets" becomes when their wallets are owned by private companies.
I fear this limits my ability to influence legislators it anyone else when it comes to this issue.
Such things happen all the time with reward points/airline miles/etc.