Step 1 - say that your "coin" is not centralized
Step 2 - proceed to contradict yourself in the next sentence
How the hell is a an obviously centralized system with 3 dozens of privileged entities is not centralized... Also it is not only oligarchy, but completely unaccountable shady oligarchy. Why people continue to "want" it is beyond understanding.
Well, they don't actually say it's "not centralized." They say it "will not be issued by a central party," which it won't--it will be issued by 28 central parties.
They also say it will be decentralized but they are really only talking about infrastructure not governance or control. This will never be anything but a completely centralized shitcoin (although a very successful one).
That's not really an apt analogy. Just wait until vendors only accept Libra as their payment option.
It is not unrealistic either. When I was in China, I dined at restaurants that would only accept WeChat Pay as payment. Only because I was a foreigner was I able to get a pass to pay in fiat.
> Just wait until vendors only accept Libra as their payment option.
The vendors are the oligarchs in this scenario.
> It is not unrealistic either. When I was in China, I dined at restaurants that would only accept WeChat Pay as payment. Only because I was a foreigner was I able to get a pass to pay in fiat.
WeChat is not the result of a private endeavor, it is state-sponsored and controlled. It would be way worse for the government to manage Libra than for Facebook to do it. Gov has USD. This just plain competes. Competition makes all parties work harder on terms for usage. Its strictly positive.
Wrong, they won't be. See my example above, just wait until everyday merchants only accept this as payment.
>WeChat is not the result of a private endeavor, it is state-sponsored and controlled. It would be way worse for the government to manage Libra than for Facebook to do it. Gov has USD.
Fiat currency is controlled by the Chinese government too. You completely missed the point. The Chinese government does not force businesses in China to only accept WeChat Pay, they choose to do so.
The dark side of the network effect is that as the network grows it becomes harder and harder to be a conscientious objector. Also abstaining isn't really participating. And by not participating you get no say in the narrative.
When you have a coherent thought on the subject, let us know.
Thats correct, to a degree. You still need to ask permission to your government to leave, and to another government to enter. But with free pass, if you don't like a place you can move, I know I did multiple times.
In the US, we have a democracy, so we have at least some say in how things go: the government is us. Facebook is not us, we obviously didn't elect Zuck or anyone else there.
"I live in and probably even vote in a country that believes I am sovereign, which thus derives its right to wield authority."
and:
"I signed up for Libra so I could more easily use Facebook, which I only joined to keep up with my kids, and thus I accept Mark Zuckerberg's authority over monetary policy, even considering I have no input on it whatsoever"
Do you have a lot of influence over US monetary policy?
I live and vote in US and as soon as the majority of US residents decide to vote contrary to my wishes I have to accept the authority of whoever they elect.
I have infinitely more control over it compared with anything I might have with Libra, because that's zero. I can also:
- run for office
- build a career in monetary policy
- join a campaign
- start a non profit advocacy group
- lobby my representatives
These only have any effect (if they're even possible otherwise) because we're a democracy with elections. Can I personally change the supply of USD? No, but that's because that kind of change affects the entire world, and there should be a serious process around it. But my point is that there _is_ a process, rooted in (if imperfectly) the fundamental liberal democratic belief in humankind's right to self- governance.
Facebook has no such guarantees. It's a serious threat to those principles. There's a huge difference.
Then allow me to be: The US guarantees your right to participate in its governance and decision making process. Facebook does not. Ceding control over monetary policy to an organization absent those guarantees is corrosive to our society, our government, and the fundamental principle of self-governance.
===
Everything on your list is only possible because we live in a free society with representation and authority over corporations. If we start ceding more and more core governing functions to corporations, how long do you think it will be legal to build a competing product? How long do you think you'll be able to lobby your representatives? How long do you think you'll have the right to start a PR campaign against Facebook? Look at your favorite authoritarian regimes for the answers.
Hmm, that's a fair question. The way I see it, monetary policy is essentially managing the supply of money. The US creates and follows its monetary policy to manage its currency, the USD. This is effective at doing things like regulating inflation or easing recessions because we have one currency here: the USD.
But if Libra starts challenging the USD even just in the US, let alone in the rest of the world, suddenly there are two dials to turn: one for USD and one for Libra. As more value is held in Libra rather than USD, US monetary policy becomes less effective.
And this is just the money supply issue. Others have raised all kinds of issues about fiduciary duties, privacy, regulation, confiscation, security, and so on. While I wouldn't at all argue that the US approach to these issues is perfect (far from it), there are at least some laws and so on. Nothing would prevent Facebook from freezing your wallet, or freezing your account, or banning you from their platform, or tracking metadata on your purchases. I would also assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that law enforcement doesn't have to jump through the same hoops to get your payment/account information, so there's potentially more loss of rights there.
This is exactly what Facebook's vision for Libra is: an alternative currency to the USD shared internationally and controlled by their consortium. They say it will be pinned to the USD and other stable currencies, but there's nothing holding them to this (and in fact most cryptocurrencies play with this). I deeply believe allowing this to happen would be a grave mistake for all of us.
I think when people aren't in control of the currency they use, as in can't change the supply of it, really bad things happen. Like, many more people would have died without the QE programs (recessions and depressions kill people). That's a major goal of CCs, and one of the main reasons I'm against them.
Please stop freeloading on our electricity, food, sanitation, roads, police/fire/education, the US military, and thousands of other services, renounce your citizenship, and leave at your earliest convenience. The US is pretty frothy about undocumented immigrants these days, so I would advise you not to dither.
Oh you mean like, felon/child/etc. suffrage? I'm fully in favor of extending the franchise to every living American; I think it's a fundamental right and morally outrageous that we ever deny it.
But I don't think that that means representative democracy in the US is a sham, equivalent to the level of representation I have at Facebook (again, zero). That would be a strawman.
How the hell is a an obviously centralized system with 3 dozens of privileged entities is not centralized... Also it is not only oligarchy, but completely unaccountable shady oligarchy. Why people continue to "want" it is beyond understanding.