"...rebranding of their Libra cryptocurrency project into the new Facebook brand Novi."
That is technically not true. Novi is a wallet Facebook is making for Libra. The wallet used to be named Calibra and caused confusion. Libra has not been rebranded by Facebook.
Cant wait for facebook to disrupt fintech with zero fee micro transactions. Been waiting for Mozilla/Firefox to do it as they are in a better middleman position.
wechat has been doing free transfers forever. Venmo too. Personal transfers on Paypal and Square cash are free too I think. Not too sure where the big disruption is.
Are you looking forward to it as a consumer or a business?
I think it will be great for businesses that are struggling with revenue due to the internet. Newspapers that don't have paywalls are going to re-evaluate considering that paywalls could now feasibly have a "day pass" option. Even sites like Reddit could adopt this model.
Could get a bit more annoying for consumers, though; constantly making purchase decisions when trying to browse the web.
First i have to pay up to 5% to receive the money, then I have to pay 5% again to get the money out of the platform. And if that wasn't enough, my purchase info and metadata is then sold to Google and Facebook. Now Facebook will get that for free and in return they can afford zero fees. With micro transactions the fees can be 90% of the total. With all social data Facebook has it will also be easier to deal with fraud and credit.
So what you're saying is that as a consumer your expectation is that less (or zero) of the transaction cost will be passed on to you?
If you pay a merchant for something but they don't deliver on it, is your expectation that you would still get your money back in this fee-free system?
I'll be pleased to see effective micro-transactions from the perspective of running a business. I think it will open up some exciting new categories of businesses that may not have been feasible before.
I'm a little bit skeptical about whether consumers have realistic expectations on this, though. I think consumers have an expectation of being able to seek recourse for a transaction they were not happy about, but that is something that someone needs to fund.
It can also be that there would be no fees and no recourse, with merchants living and dying on their reputation, but in this case there would be certain transactions where consumers will still strongly prefer the existing systems, I think.
Consumers are protected by consumer laws. The nice thing with credit cards is that you first get consumer protection from buying, then you also get consumer protection from the bank. But if you make a bank transfer there is no consumer protection with the bank, only from the merchant. The problem is when you buy from a private person, then there is very little protection.
Is there reason to believe that their foray into the financial sector will be treated differently under a democratic president/legislators vs republican ones?
Crypto currencies generally are more popular with people who have less trust in the state, while people who trust states and their currencies are more sceptical. The same line exists in the Democratic/Republican divide.
The question is how Facebook will market and promote their wallet and efforts. My assumption is that for end users this will be promoted as a way to buy and sell things and services via Facebook platforms (pay my cab driver via WhatsApp while travelling etc.) and the fact it's a crypto currency underneath is an attempt to reassure other financial players that Facebook won't take over their business, but allows interacting (in the end users have to convert from/to local currency, which requires banks etc.)
And with that it's less a topic in that political divide.
Libra doesn't really have monetary policy since it's supposed to be 1:1 backed by real money, but now that you mention it I wonder what they would do if (purely hypothetically) one of their backing bank accounts got seized.
It is worth remember that the current state of finance is already surveillance finance. Credit card records are sold and purchased, all large chains and stores do significant customer tracking on their own, more than just every item you purchase, when, and where. Even services like Gmail scrape information from your email for every receipt that you receive, although they purchase CC data either way.
I think a lot of the push back is from current banking TBTF group tbh (there was a talk about financial innovation at pearsons school in nyc a couple months ago, where folks from global central banks were pretty much just laughing)… and as someone who doesn't use FB/IG/etc, if they can chip away at the hold of existing king of the hills, they will make the rest crypto currency landscape more approachable in the future after FB eventually poisons the waters for some subset of users who prior to using what facebook cooks up and shoves down its useds throats, wern't interested in cryptocurrencies (or anything related) at all… which I'd call a win for the BCH/XMR/etc crowd.
Let the tech/banking giants duke it out, and everyone else can come it an clean what's left of their carcasses eventually.
Don't forget that due to increasingly heavy financial regulations adopted by FATF require financial institutions to have extreme surveillance data on all financial transactions and to report anything they themselves deem to be suspicious to the authorities. This includes things such as cross-border activity (logging in from a foreign ip) to using a VPN.
> This includes things such as cross-border activity (logging in from a foreign ip) to using a VPN.
This is a thing? I don’t get the point of reporting cross border logins. Cross border transactions makes sense, but what’s so nefarious about me paying my water bill while in Mexico?
Yup, and of course there's also FinCEN, the IRS, the BSA which includes reporting of currency transactions, suspicious transactions, FBAR where you have to disclose all foreign holdings, and many other reports. I think similar regulations will hit cryptocurrency eventually, requiring holders to report their addresses they have the private keys of, sadly.
> This might become the law, but how would it be enforced?
By a few token measure that wont scale, just like current existing income tax structure. The main enforcement mechanism now is heavily reliant upon employers withholding on the behalf of employees and banks reporting on their accounts (the same entities that consider fines for felonious dealings just a cost of doing business); without it, existing tax enforcement would be toothless to most.
> To contact me via email run one of the following scripts to generate my contact information. I find this is an effective filter against the deluge of emails from recruiters.
> Recruiters who do contact me will be named and shamed publicly.
And wow, tbf that haskell script is simple enough to read w/o compiling. Never knew it was that easy to read. If you know a ceaser cipher then you can literally do it in your head.
This is an open secret when Chinese government started heavily pushing for digital currency on top of blockchain. But everyone is smart enough to not talk about that...
Edit: Interestingly enough, the sensitivity surrounding block-chain (and AI, in the context of mass surveillance) is showing the effect of significantly slow down the mass adoption of the technology.
AI mass surveillance has already become an mass market in China. It however is still "a solution looking for problem" in US.
How this can play out in the longer term? For example, what would happen if the relinquish of privacy in the short term, allowed China to secure its strategic upper hand in economy size and technologies, through the value unlocked through Blockchain and AI?
From the perspective of US economy and technology development, it's a very challenging problem to figure out how to apply these technologies quickly. As there is literally zero resistance in China.
This issue is more urgent for AI. In addition to the fact that AI surveillance is already used everywhere in China, it's also super effective in the near term. For example, I can imagine AI can easily enhance the effectiveness of war machines to an entirely higher level.
Disclaimer: Intentionally putting moral judgement aside.
A thread having nothing to do with nice. Oh lets see if I can squeeze some silly propaganda into it. You could have just as easily made your point without the old trite propaganda about china. The propaganda gets boring and ineffective after a while. Why not try something different?
>"After the initial announcement and code drop last year, the Libra name has been dragged through the mud by the press due to the project’s complete disdain for compliance and their bizarre code drop."
Could someone who is familiar with this event say what was actually "bizarre" about the way the code was delivered?
They were ostensibly just getting Libra started and open to feedback from the consortium but a lot of work had already been done on the code. This is often a sign of openwashing.
For what is worth, what was released was a state of the art implementation of a consensus protocol with different technological opinionated choices (what signature algorithm, what hash function, how to store account state, etc.)
This did not have (and should not) have any impact on discussions around regulations. The development has also been ongoing in the open for a year since the announcement, so contributions and discussions are (and have been) welcome.
I honestly don't understand the "bizarre" code drop, as we followed a common pattern for a cryptocurrency (announcement with code and potentially a testnet)
Crypto finance should be, in general, run as open source, non-profit if it really wants to bring any societal change and democratize establishments. For-profit corporations running these programs under the garb of friendly deceptive branding can at most influence a behavior which is the only real positive.
It cannot be run as any traditional incorporated entity if it doesn't want to get essentially turned into one of the already existing financial services companies.
51 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadThat is technically not true. Novi is a wallet Facebook is making for Libra. The wallet used to be named Calibra and caused confusion. Libra has not been rebranded by Facebook.
I think it will be great for businesses that are struggling with revenue due to the internet. Newspapers that don't have paywalls are going to re-evaluate considering that paywalls could now feasibly have a "day pass" option. Even sites like Reddit could adopt this model.
Could get a bit more annoying for consumers, though; constantly making purchase decisions when trying to browse the web.
If you pay a merchant for something but they don't deliver on it, is your expectation that you would still get your money back in this fee-free system?
I'll be pleased to see effective micro-transactions from the perspective of running a business. I think it will open up some exciting new categories of businesses that may not have been feasible before.
I'm a little bit skeptical about whether consumers have realistic expectations on this, though. I think consumers have an expectation of being able to seek recourse for a transaction they were not happy about, but that is something that someone needs to fund.
It can also be that there would be no fees and no recourse, with merchants living and dying on their reputation, but in this case there would be certain transactions where consumers will still strongly prefer the existing systems, I think.
Basically do they have a dog in this fight?
The question is how Facebook will market and promote their wallet and efforts. My assumption is that for end users this will be promoted as a way to buy and sell things and services via Facebook platforms (pay my cab driver via WhatsApp while travelling etc.) and the fact it's a crypto currency underneath is an attempt to reassure other financial players that Facebook won't take over their business, but allows interacting (in the end users have to convert from/to local currency, which requires banks etc.)
And with that it's less a topic in that political divide.
But it’s mixed in with some pretty interesting details and references. It’s worth a read.
Let the tech/banking giants duke it out, and everyone else can come it an clean what's left of their carcasses eventually.
This is a thing? I don’t get the point of reporting cross border logins. Cross border transactions makes sense, but what’s so nefarious about me paying my water bill while in Mexico?
This might become the law, but how would it be enforced?
I thought the world leaning on Swiss banks for data was effectively an admission that anonymous accounts were unlinkable from the client side.
By a few token measure that wont scale, just like current existing income tax structure. The main enforcement mechanism now is heavily reliant upon employers withholding on the behalf of employees and banks reporting on their accounts (the same entities that consider fines for felonious dealings just a cost of doing business); without it, existing tax enforcement would be toothless to most.
In the EU local bankcards are used much more than CC and these are not mined.
In NL shops are prohibited to build customer profiles based on their purchase history.
In the US, 2-5% is the base level of cashback from credit cards.
So, a little bit of "we mine and monetize your transactions, but pay you for doing so."
> To contact me via email run one of the following scripts to generate my contact information. I find this is an effective filter against the deluge of emails from recruiters.
> Recruiters who do contact me will be named and shamed publicly.
And wow, tbf that haskell script is simple enough to read w/o compiling. Never knew it was that easy to read. If you know a ceaser cipher then you can literally do it in your head.
Edit: Interestingly enough, the sensitivity surrounding block-chain (and AI, in the context of mass surveillance) is showing the effect of significantly slow down the mass adoption of the technology.
AI mass surveillance has already become an mass market in China. It however is still "a solution looking for problem" in US.
How this can play out in the longer term? For example, what would happen if the relinquish of privacy in the short term, allowed China to secure its strategic upper hand in economy size and technologies, through the value unlocked through Blockchain and AI?
From the perspective of US economy and technology development, it's a very challenging problem to figure out how to apply these technologies quickly. As there is literally zero resistance in China.
This issue is more urgent for AI. In addition to the fact that AI surveillance is already used everywhere in China, it's also super effective in the near term. For example, I can imagine AI can easily enhance the effectiveness of war machines to an entirely higher level.
Disclaimer: Intentionally putting moral judgement aside.
Could someone who is familiar with this event say what was actually "bizarre" about the way the code was delivered?
This did not have (and should not) have any impact on discussions around regulations. The development has also been ongoing in the open for a year since the announcement, so contributions and discussions are (and have been) welcome.