Facebook Token Runs Into Instant Political Opposition in Europe (bloomberg.com) 96
Hours after Facebook unveiled its cryptocurrency project today, European officials have called for scrutiny of the plan, raising concerns over whether the project was sufficiently regulated. From a report: French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said the digital currency known as Libra shouldn't be seen as a replacement for traditional currencies. "It is out of question" that Libra "become a sovereign currency," Le Maire said in an interview on Europe 1 radio. "It can't and it must not happen." Le Maire called on the Group of Seven central bank governors, guardians of the global monetary system, to prepare a report on Facebook's project for their July meeting. His concerns include privacy, money laundering and terrorism finance. Libra was also a talking point at the European Central Bank's annual symposium in Sintra, Portugal, where Bank of England Governor Mark Carney referenced Libra. "Anything that works in this world will become instantly systemic and will have to be subject to the highest standards off regulation," he said.
Looks like Bitcoin is up even more (Score:3)
With Facebook validating the fundamental concept of cryptocurrency, it only stands to reason this will prop up the validity of other cryptocurrencies.
Governments can try banning it all they like but it is inherently unbannable.
They should could mess with Facebook though, not sure I'd put any money into that - especially not with it being chained to state currencies.
Re: (Score:1)
I work for Facebook. So I am really getting a kick really out of some of these replies. Some of you Slashdotters are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.....you don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you just don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad information gets passed around.
If you don't know about the topic, don't make yourself sound like you do, because some Slashdotters believe anything they read.
Sounds like Facebook, don't it?
How does working at Facebook matter here? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for Facebook...But trust me.....you don't.
Not quite sure why you responded to me, since my entire post was pure speculation about the effect of Facecoin on Bitcoin. I mean, what exactly is there "to know anything about" there when it's not even happened yet?
You say you work for Facebook which is fine and all, but I'm not even saying anything about Facebook here so how do you have any information that would pertain one way or the other to what I'm talking about? It sure doesn't mean you have any kind of special knowledge about cryptocurrency markets. Maybe if you said you lived in your mom's basement and derived all you income from Bitcoin I might put more stock in what you have to say.
Looking through the other answers is all pretty much along the same lines, none of them are about Facebook right now and all seem to be talking about government reaction to cryptocurrency. It's not like you are with the French government.
If you think something is wrong why not point out the thing that is wrong instead of chortling and claiming you know what is wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I propose a more descriptive name. Instead of Facecoin, how about Zuck Bucks(TM)?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I work for the Illuminati. So I'm getting a kick out someone at Facebook making it sound like they know the deep mechanics of currencies.
You'll learn, Facebook, you'll learn in ways that you never wanted to.
Re: (Score:1)
I work for Facebook. ... This is how bad information gets passed around.
Well you would be the expert on that matter.
"I work for Facebook" (Score:2)
I work for Facebook. So am really getting a kick really out of some of these replies. Some of you Slashdotters are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.....you don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you just don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad information gets passed around.
If you don't know about the topic, don't make yourself sound like you do, because some Slashdotters believe anything they read.
1. Pretty sure this is the first new troll style I've seen pop up on slashdot in a while. (Just omit the "I work for Facebook" intro and it works as cromulent copypasta)[*] Maybe the site's not entirely moribund yet!
2. re: "Libra" - you know who's a Libra, don't you? Vladimir Putin is a Libra. Just sayin...
[*] or better yet, always include is apropos to nothing. The more OT the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi,
My name is Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook works for me. But trust me, you don't.... anymore.
Don't see how that could even happen (Score:3)
the Facebook coin will fragment the crypto market further, devaluing bitcoin.
I might buy that if Facecoin and Bitcoin were not so diametrically opposed.
Facecoin is tied to state currency, so none of the people speculating in Bitcoin would use it for that.
Facecoin will be THE most heavily tracked currency on earth with very probable direct pipes from law enforcement monitoring each and every transaction. So anyone using Bitcoin for something they do not want tracked will stay the hell away from Facecoin.
T
Re: (Score:1)
With Facebook validating the fundamental concept of cryptocurrency, it only stands to reason this will prop up the validity of other cryptocurrencies.
Why? Libra is not really using a blockchain (the description is vague, but the little they say about the validation mechanism definitely rules blockchain out). Libra is not decentralized (vague wishes for the future notwithstanding). Libra looks nothing like a cryptocurrency - in fact, it looks awfully like a bond ETF (check their description of the assets that will be backing it) that's trying to circumvent financial markets regulations by attempting to associate itself with cryptocurrencies through vague
Re: (Score:3)
Cryptocurrency is designed to be unbannable. But it can be forced underground. If enough governments prohibit trading, the only place to trade will be the seedy underbelly of the internet, and the only things you can buy with it will be things too criminal to buy with ordinary money.
Happy coincidence then (Score:3)
If enough governments prohibit trading, the only place to trade will be the seedy underbelly of the internet, and the only things you can buy with it will be things too criminal to buy with ordinary money.
Well luckily for all of us, governments are prone to ban more and more things so there's a wide array of things you'll be able to purchase - plastic straws, plastic bags, soda Sith sugar in large sizes. All to be had by the wiley crypto buyer.
Heck even weed will still be popular to buy, since in Californi
Re: (Score:2)
Governments can try banning it all they like but it is inherently unbannable.
To use such a currency in real life you need two points to exchange it from and into the currency of the land.
First when you put money in it, then when you want to spend it.
Both these instances can and will be controlled.
Oh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is out of question" that Libra "become a sovereign currency," Le Maire said in an interview on Europe 1 radio. "It can't and it must not happen"
Ok, it's got the politicians worried. That's a surprising good sign - maybe LIbra can be something good despite Facebook!
Seriously, the only reason they would be worried is because they see that having a currency independent of national politics might reduce their power. I'm not sure having a currency under the effective control of a bunch of corporations is much of an improvement, but it can hardly be worse that the current situation, where national banks basically print money to cover insane national deficits. Having an alternative might force some financial discipline on spendthrift governments.
Not really independent though (Score:3)
a currency independent of national politics
Facebook already sad that Facecoin would be tied to a basket of stet currencies. So it's not really indpendant from national politics, although variations in one or two are smoothed out.
Otherwise I agree, politicians being worried is a good sign. Going to enjoy seeing how this all progresses.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, the only reason they would be worried is because they see that having a currency independent of national politics might reduce their power.
Probably not so much as many of these countries are using Euro for stability and predictability. Of course, some in the anti-EU camps want to return to the previous turmoil for tax evasion and speculation opportunities. Given the recent EU banking regulations, it makes sense them to react like this to any system that undermines that effort.
Lets go to Mars where we can begin a new and all can be free under one rule, one nation, one planet. Freeddooom! /semi-sarcastics
Re: (Score:2)
see that having a currency independent of national politics might reduce their power.
Its not really independent of politics, because of the fact that they intend to peg its value to the EUR by having central authorities creating
and removing coins.
Re:Oh, really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the only reason they would be worried is because they see that having a currency independent of national politics might reduce their power.
Nope, there are other major macroeconomic reasons to want your own currency.
For example, deflation is really awful for an economy. Producers (of anything, including labor) do not want to cut their prices, even in the face of low sales. So they don't. And the economy will just suck for a very long time until they relent.
After 2008, the US could dump money into the economy because it had its own currency and debt in its own currency. That prevented deflation, and the economy was bad but not awful. Japan should be getting destroyed by deflation, but again they have their own currency and debt in that currency so they can fight it.
Spain, Greece and every other "cautionary tale" from 2008 did not have their own currency, and Germany blocked any efforts to fight deflation in the periphery. Resulting in utterly awful economies in those countries.
If everyone actually moved to Bitcoin, then every response to an economic downturn is going to have to look a lot more like Spain. And that, despite all the bullshit being thrown around by conservatives, would be very bad.
National Interests (Score:4, Insightful)
The inherent problem is currency is a matter of national interest; it is literally one of the key tools that governments use to regulate and manage their internal economy and their trade balances with other countries. Crytocurrency supporters seem to me to completely ignore or under-appreciate the political aspects of currencies, or seem to think that they can just create an alternative that can challenge the dominance of national currencies.
But herein is the problem. States (meaning the actual government that governs a nation) have certain core powers. They have one primary hard power, a monopoly on violence (they can physically restrain you against your will if you break the law) and a number of soft power tools such as currency manipulation and the ability to create laws, generate taxes, etc. Cryptocurrency is a technical solution to a problem that is not technical in nature: it is political. If you challenge a national currency, the government will come after you, first with the regulations, fines and taxes with an intent to harm your ability to live comfortably, and if you don't pay they will arrest you.
No country is going to give up their soft power over currency. Facebook is dreaming here.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I do understand. Cryptocurrency supporters are naive about what currency is, so every cryptocurrency is not designed correctly, and thus is doomed to fail in it's goal to disrupt the government's ability to control currency.
Governments get to control the printing of money, interest rates, taxation, etc. all to manage the economy. But the real power behind a currency is the populace's acceptance that the currency is real. If you buy a car from me and pay me $5,000, you would be ok with that and I will
Re: (Score:2)
They left crypto-currency alone a long time though. They hardly regulated Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ether or Gemini. So of course eventually some large company is going to see cryptocurrency as a cheap way to compete with credit cards and Paypal by avoiding most regulations.
The EU will in my opinion find it hard to justify going after Libre without finally addressing the wild west of cryptocurrencies as a whole ... but cryptocurrencies have momentum now, billions of dollars locked in. Will the EU have the balls?
I
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, the Euro dwarfs cryptocurrencies too though ... if they move against them, it's going to wipe out cryptocurrencies (ie. if they make illegal all transactions between cryptocurrency exchanges and European banks and credit card accounts).
Once all Proof Of Work cryptocurrencies go to a level where 50% attacks are trivial it will be very hard to climb out of that hole, the adversaries are a lot more sophisticated now than when they started.
Re: (Score:2)
Existing nations that don't control their currency (Score:2)
The inherent problem is currency is a matter of national interest; it is literally one of the key tools that governments use to regulate and manage their internal economy and their trade balances with other countries.
So what does that mean for nations of the Eurozone, who abdicated their central banks in favor of the one in Frankfurt? Or Ecuador, which uses the USD as its currency?
Re: (Score:3)
You know Greece? That's what it means. If your economy gets in trouble, you don't have the financial tools to do anything about it. Actually, it's worse than Greece. In the EU Germany and France will bail you out if you do what they tell you to. The non-central bank of Bitcoin isn't going to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The inherent problem is currency is a matter of national interest; it is literally one of the key tools that governments use to regulate and manage their internal economy and their trade balances with other countries. Crytocurrency supporters seem to me to completely ignore or under-appreciate the political aspects of currencies, or seem to think that they can just create an alternative that can challenge the dominance of national currencies.
This is why I've never been able to consider a cryptocurrency to be a currency. When a government issues a currency, they back it. That's why when you receive a £10 or $20 note, you accept it because the UK or US government is saying "we will use our wealth and power to ensure the value of this monetary instrument". Its a promissory note from someone you know can unequivocally make good on it, ergo when a government cannot back it's currency becomes pretty much worthless. With cryptocurrency it's not
Some thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what I've been thinking about recently. The real reason why banks and government might generally hate crypto-currencies is not money laundering, terrorism finance, and other shady things which could be carried out using fiat currency as well.
It might because (central) banks and governments have always had the monopoly on money (which in this world means power) and now they might be losing it. That's a really scary prospect. It's as if real true democracy which has steadily been diminishing over the past few decades has suddenly found a new opening in the world which has slowly been turning into mega-corporations vs. powerless citizens.
It's still worth remembering that Facebook backed Libra, Telegram backed Gram/TON, Ripple Labs backed Ripple aren't really peoples' crypto-currencies. They look more like corporate equivalents of fiat money. Premined and preowned.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you people are funny. If it didn't happen within the last century, it just didn't happen, eh?
Central banks and governments did not have an effective monopoly on money prior to the elimination of the gold standard. Currencies were stand-ins for gold, silver, or other valuable commodities, redeemable in those commodities, and substitutable by those commodities. Currencies could be marginally more convenient than those commodities since you didn't have to lug the actual thing around and verify that it was not adulterated (alloyed with a base or heavy metal, etc.), but if someone discovered a big deposit of gold you had a giant influx of "currency" and nothing that you could do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to ask the CIA -- here's a short documentary [youtu.be] on currency destabilization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It might because (central) banks and governments have always had the monopoly on money (which in this world means power) and now they might be losing it.
It also might be that manipulation of a country's currency is the primary way a country can reduce the harm of an economic downturn.
Spain had its economy massively inflated by real estate speculators. Then 2008 happened, and its economy was hit very hard.
When the same thing hit the US, we poured money into the economy and thus staved off deflation. This was bad for places like North Dakota that were still booming, but massively helpful in places like Florida that were being very badly hurt. On average th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
who is going to loan crypto for real estate speculation?
If "everyone" was actually using it as currency, then banks would be lending it.
The housing bubble has already been more than reinflated by the Fed, that's supposed to a be a solution?
[Citation Required]
The Fed doesn't make home loans. The best they can do is have some influence on the interest rate offered by banks.
How's that "global" currency working out for you? (Score:2)
Facebook had to have know this was an issue, right? They're not completely clueless, are they? Is their plan to fight through the regulatory nightmare? Is it just to bump up their stock price with "new" developments?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook wants to be the world's online bank. They're *calling* it a cryptocurrency to play off all the hype, but it really sounds just like a regular bank. You put some actual money in, Facebook issues you some numbers that say you did so, then later you can cash those numbers in for some actual money. You can send or receive numbers from other people, and if it really catches on most people might not really bother converting their numbers to cash very often.
Facebook numbers, HSBC numbers, what's the diffe
Hmmm (Score:2)
I don't and btw wouldn't work for Facebook, just as I made the decision to never again take a contract from a major financial institution, but I do use cryptocurrency to buy pot from recreational shops in California. I don't claim to be an expert or even knowledgeable about the financial markets but I know enough to avoid cryptocurrency as investment. It sure works as an effective means of laundering funds and making anonymous purchases. I wonder how many (m)billions of $$$'s are shifting hands for the drug
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I hate Facebook (Score:2)