Market is Not Ready for Libra

[dnprock]

Original Post: https://bitflate.org/post/2019/10/25/market-is-not-ready-for-libra.html

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recently appeared in front of the United States Congress for a hearing about Libra cryptocurrency. The hearing lacked substance. Most congress members did not inquire deeply about Libra. They instead delved into smearing Facebook and its credibility. Both sides point fingers at each other. Crypto aficionados laments the lack of openness from regulators to new technologies. Regardless, there is deep misunderstanding and distrust between the public and the tech community.

Emerging markets of cryptocurrencies

Since the birth of Bitcoin, crypto builders have been developing the wrong solutions. The first generation of cryptocurrencies were hard forks of Bitcoin. They tried to create so called better versions of Bitcoin. Then there were efforts to generalize Bitcoin to blockchain technology. These trends continue. But we still end up with no cryptocurrency that we can use for everyday transactions.

It’s time to resolve the ideological debate between centralization and decentralization. Historical trends in technology told us that we swerve between these two polars. We cannot completely settle into one place. That would be utopia or dystopia. We went from mainframe (centralized) to personal computers (decentralized). Then we made the transition to cloud computing (centralized). There is now effort to decentralize the cloud computing stacks. The cycles never end.

Each cryptocurrency makes their own design tradeoff. It it useful to think about monies in a spectrum.



As we move from Centralization and Decentralization, we get different kinds of currencies. Each comes with their own advantage and disadvantage.

The potential of semi-centralized cryptocurrencies like Libra

Libra is a semi-centralized cryptocurrency. It is a better version of centralized cryptocurrencies like Tether or USDC. These coins are issued by a single entity. There is no way to audit their record. We rather have a stablecoin issued by an association of companies. The Libra Association has a governing charter. It is beneficial for consumers having member companies audit the Libra record. These member companies have competing agenda. They serve as check and balance for consumers.

Libra is too early

Unfortunately, Facebook initiated the Libra project. The company was involved in many data and privacy scandals. Consumer’s trust in Facebook is low. Another hurdle for Libra adoption is the public’s misunderstanding. Bitcoin is difficult to understand. Most people don’t have time to dive into its details. Its price fluctuates wildly. They don’t see benefits of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin has as many critics as believers. The public has not accepted a crypto future. To normal people, Libra is another effort by big corporations to intrude and control their lives.

Filling the gap with Bitflate, a decentralized stablecoin

Bitflate is a cryptocurrency with constant inflation rate of 7%. The project’s goal is to create a digital native and decentralized stablecoin. By adding inflation, Bitflate price will not rise forever. It will have less price volatility. Bitflate can be a gentler introduction for people to the world of cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency Future

A cryptocurrency future is inevitable. There will be many cryptocurrencies. Each will have a different design and tradeoff. Instead of thinking about zero sum games, we need to look forward to this future. We will have greater financial freedom. We can choose the best currencies for our financial goals. Governments and companies will soon join this vision. At the end of the day, we the people, are in control.

[aioc]

The market is ready for anything, it accepts Ponzi schemes in the past and so many different kinds of project that has nothing to do with Cryptocurrency, it just so happens that libra Coin is a big project under the biggest company on the internet and the one that managing it has a bad reputation when it comes to privacy concern.

[DaMut]

It is funny to say we need to be in the middle of centralized and decentralized, these two things will always exist and we are choosing them based on the trend.
there is nothing called semi-centralized and semi-decentralized because once there is authority behind it that means it is centralized.
it is as simple as that, and Libra is not too early instead they have a bad start and history.
Did he expect the government will believe him after what he has done to their users before?

[oxgroth]

Regulators are not ready for libra. It will be fully centralized stablecoin which will give Facebook too much power.
Facebook is not right company for project like this. Maybe apple but not this social network for sure

[Nadziratel]

Libra and semi-centralized? Come on! Libra is not semi-centralized idea, it is full centralized. They will have all your data when they fully operational.
But I am ok with that. If someone in here want to use Libra, then let them use. Decentralization need that. Everyone can do anything what they want. (Except bad things)

[Kyraishi]

Is the market not ready for Libra? Or is Libra not ready for the market?

I would argue the latter - the second Libra was created, things already started going wrong, I mean, who would trust Facebook, the company that literally has had so many data breaches and doesn't care about your privacy, to create a new crypto-currency?

It is funny to say we need to be in the middle of centralized and decentralized, these two things will always exist and we are choosing them based on the trend.
there is nothing called semi-centralized and semi-decentralized because once there is authority behind it that means it is centralized.
it is as simple as that, and Libra is not too early instead they have a bad start and history.
Did he expect the government will believe him after what he has done to their users before?

Semi-centralized would be an interesting concept. The problem with decentralization is that the government doesn't support it and they end up getting "blocked" when they are trying to go mainstream by the government.

[TheUltraElite]

OP is promoting his own shitcoins. Cant you all see? This is a topic from bitinflate, another shitcoin going down the drain but some noobs attempt to pick it up and try to make money from it. They are using Libra for the SEO that is has gained recently thus trying to market their opinion.

Such topics are the reason why FUD spreads. Moreover Libra is not a "semi" or whatever blah blah blah -prefix you think of -centralized coin. It is a completely centralized coin developed by one of the multinational companies that have a large share in the US S&P stock exchange. Would a bitcoin user ever trust them? Highly unlikely. But altcoin shills? Yeah to promote their own altcoins in time of doom like the author of this post.

[senin]

Just Facebook is not suitable for the role of the creator of the global stable coin, the role of which Libra claimed. Such a coin should not be created by a private corporation, but by the state, or even better by the union of states. Because if such a stable coin takes a strong position in the global financial market, everything that happens to it negative will affect global financial stability. Therefore, in this case, states will be forced to support a private corporation that issued a global stable coin. Why do states need this?
Therefore, let the US government issue such a coin, or even for the worst case of China.

[Samboo]

Yes you are right on this front. Cryptocurrency's use is inevitable and none can alter it. But at present and in the past years of its journey, cryptocurrency has been facing many resistance, but it has been braving it. Still now authorities are not fully ready to welcome and embrace it fully. But they will embrace at the end as cryptocurrency will liberate the people from hassle-involved transaction. Concerning Libra project, Facebook will issue its digital coin in the future, if not now.

[DaMut]

Semi-centralized would be an interesting concept. The problem with decentralization is that the government doesn't support it and they end up getting "blocked" when they are trying to go mainstream by the government.

How it is interesting?
When something has authority behind it no matter what we call it, the life of the project has been determined and controlled by the authoritarian.
this is not an interesting concept because the authoritarian will blame the decentralization if something goes wrong and deciding the improvement based on centralization.
we just need to separate it and everything will be fine.

[danherbias07]

The market is ready for anything, it accepts Ponzi schemes in the past and so many different kinds of project that has nothing to do with Cryptocurrency, it just so happens that libra Coin is a big project under the biggest company on the internet and the one that managing it has a bad reputation when it comes to privacy concern.

Merited.

This is the easiest answer of them all.
A huge company that is based in US soil. What do you think will happen?
Unlike bitcoin which doesnt even have a base at all. It just lives in the internet and runs through data mining.

The next one which will grow is another crypto currency that is discovered out of nowhere unlike Libra which is created.

[blckhawk]

Facebook wants Libra to go live as soon as possible because they have fear of missing out in the cryptocurrency race. They want it as early as now, but being under a government that has hot eyes on cryptocurrencies, and Facebook being too popular, they need to pass through regulations, which isn't done yet and with controversies to Facebook's way of handling data and privacy, Libra is having a hard time to go to the market. Anyway, I don't think Libra is semi-centralized. It still seems centralized to me.

[angrybirdy]

Facebook wants Libra to go live as soon as possible because they have fear of missing out in the cryptocurrency race. They want it as early as now, but being under a government that has hot eyes on cryptocurrencies, and Facebook being too popular, they need to pass through regulations, which isn't done yet and with controversies to Facebook's way of handling data and privacy, Libra is having a hard time to go to the market. Anyway, I don't think Libra is semi-centralized. It still seems centralized to me.

This will be their greatest mistake if they pursue this move.
Making everything in a rush will only lead them to failure. Even if they can successfully launch Libra right away, we all know that the project is still not set, after their partners leave the project they still intend to continue without having an alternative plan.

[Herbert2020]

it has nothing to do with the market and its readiness it is all about the fact that the government doesn't want to allow a company like Facebook to start printing money because printing money is something that only the government (federal reserve in US?) is allowed to do. and Facebook is trying to do that without permit.

and your picture is also wrong. Facebook's coin is 100% centralized not semi-centralized, it is even more centralized than Tether.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Most congress members did not inquire deeply about Libra. They instead delved into smearing Facebook and its credibility.

They should have delved deeper into Libra, but this is what congressional hearings always amount to, ie, political posturing and attacks.  On the other hand, I think facebook deserves some scrutiny about their privacy policies.  A hearing about their crap stable coin just isn't the right place for it, tho.  Our congresss just loves to do things like this.  Always has, always will.

I am as indifferent to the fate of Libra as one can be.  The world and future fate of crypto won't be affected either way if it never gets released and if it does, I have a feeling that there won't be many people who are enthusiastic about owning or using it.  Are there that many people passionate about stable coins?  Absolutely not.  Facebook just wants another profitable thing, and they want to cash in on the crypto craze.

What worries me about Libra and the attention its getting from congress is that lawmakers might set a precedent here if they make a ruling on it.  I am not *too* worried, but it is a possibility that any ruling could affect bitcoin and other cryptos, at least in the states.

[Darooghe]

I have been trying to stay optimistic about Libra, but I’m afraid it won’t be even a real cryptocurrency after all. All we know for now is that Libra will be based on blockchain. That’s good, Of course, but it doesn’t make it a crypto already. it is a digital currency. It is backed by fiat and is not in physical form. Libra will be tied to fiat value. Escaping the intentional inflation of fiat is a major advantage of crypto, and Libra is only going to be good vs Crypto, if Crypto fails.

Anyone who compares a fiat-stablecoin to a real cryptocurrency is forgetting some vital information about the Crypto dream/promise. there are some specific aspects of cryptocurrency which don’t match with Libra at any point. Crypto should be decentralized, and Libra made specifically for Facebook’s purpose, won’t be. it should be trustless but we won’t be able to check specific data bout it, cause it all will be in hand of Zuckerberg. Libra is not a new concept in Crypto, i think it’s exactly the same as all the altcoins before it, a distracting money grab that is marketed towards people who don’t understand it.

[crypoco]

I think this will not success as they plan to  make it semi-centralized cryptocurrency, most of us go to crypto due to  non-centralized cryptocurrency , and all of us looking for non-centralized cryptocurrency.

[leea-1334]

Libra is too early? What nonsense I have heard,,, Bitcoin is 10 times more revolutionary than Libra and it is now 11 years old almost,,, Libra is nothing compared to most blockchain projects. At the most it is like Ripple, with a whitepaper that was so poorly written that it was taken down when people started pointing out the errors.

It is not too early, it is just not good enough.

[NeuroticFish]

The hearing lacked substance. Most congress members did not inquire deeply about Libra. They instead delved into smearing Facebook and its credibility.

Although the hearing was not about Libra, it had a very important meaning they wanted to demonstrate: it's too risky to put so much power into Mark's hands.
And Libra means a lot of power and a lot of things that can go wrong, no matter which angle you are looking from.

Libra would mean the first crypto with bigger acceptance than Bitcoin.
Libra would mean a stable coin, like USDT. Tied to one issuer. Something for which the issuer may impose rules you didn't even think of. Just remember what happened when Bittrex "seized" people's coins asking for KYC and multiply it 1 million times. And this can easily happen.

[AliMan]

Facebook wants Libra to go live as soon as possible because they have fear of missing out in the cryptocurrency race. They want it as early as now, but being under a government that has hot eyes on cryptocurrencies, and Facebook being too popular, they need to pass through regulations, which isn't done yet and with controversies to Facebook's way of handling data and privacy, Libra is having a hard time to go to the market. Anyway, I don't think Libra is semi-centralized. It still seems centralized to me.

How can we call it centralized when it can't even pass the regulation of the US government. In fact Mark already have said some words against Libra that they won't pursue this project, one there's no proper turn over to public. Many of the prospected supporters of Libra were declining their interests for this project due to undergoing circumstances that roll over into speculations right now.