What's the profit potential for Facebook here, especially above using an existing cryptocurrency for payments on their platforms?
Having low friction payments on Facebook makes sense, it build value into the platform and Facebook can capture some of that. But can't they do that with an existing cryptocurrency?
It doesn't seem like Facebook will maintain full control of the currency due to the consensus algorithm. There is power and control if Facebook continues to control the fork of the code base that everyone uses, but presumably nodes could choose to switch away from Facebook's fork. So I'm not seeing "control a currency" as a long term benefit.
It makes sense that anyone running a Libra node would make money, but anyone else running a node would make similar profit.
The article mentions that a long term goal could be "act as a data broker and mediate consumers access to credit", although again, doesn't the decentralized nature permit any node from taking those steps? That doesn't seem to uniquely advantage Facebook.
As others mention, once a cryptocurrency is "too big to fail", regulators are locked out. Is Libra really an easier approach to getting a cryptocurrency to that point, versus adopting and accelerating the growth of an existing coin (like Bitcoin)?
Does Facebook just think they can build a better cryptocurrency? I don't doubt that they can hire good engineers, but with all the politics and marketing focus on the code now, development is probably getting stressful and chaotic.
In a world where "everyone" uses Libra, they need a FB account to access their wallet, and FB will see every consumer decision at its most valuable - the point of exchanging money for goods and services. This is immensely valuable for an ad company.
Having low friction payments on Facebook makes sense, it build value into the platform and Facebook can capture some of that. But can't they do that with an existing cryptocurrency?
It doesn't seem like Facebook will maintain full control of the currency due to the consensus algorithm. There is power and control if Facebook continues to control the fork of the code base that everyone uses, but presumably nodes could choose to switch away from Facebook's fork. So I'm not seeing "control a currency" as a long term benefit.
It makes sense that anyone running a Libra node would make money, but anyone else running a node would make similar profit.
The article mentions that a long term goal could be "act as a data broker and mediate consumers access to credit", although again, doesn't the decentralized nature permit any node from taking those steps? That doesn't seem to uniquely advantage Facebook.
As others mention, once a cryptocurrency is "too big to fail", regulators are locked out. Is Libra really an easier approach to getting a cryptocurrency to that point, versus adopting and accelerating the growth of an existing coin (like Bitcoin)?
Does Facebook just think they can build a better cryptocurrency? I don't doubt that they can hire good engineers, but with all the politics and marketing focus on the code now, development is probably getting stressful and chaotic.