7 ms·

I have a feeling that they will end just launching something in developing countries with weak regulation and will be done with it. It's a way to get more data

by pcora 7y ago

I have a feeling that they will end just launching something in developing countries with weak regulation and will be done with it. It's a way to get more data from people. It's becoming pretty clear that this will not fly in the US or EU.

perseusprime11 7y ago
They won't be able to do this in India or China.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  China is no longer a developing country. They will probably be able to pull something like this off in a country with poor banking.
  - perseusprime11 7y ago
    It is DOA if it has no adoption in US, Europe, India and China.
- tpmx 7y ago
  (Agreed.) So in terms of large-ish economies/populations, maybe they have a chance in parts of Africa (I know some people working at chinese-owned companies hard at work on this market) and maybe parts of South America and SEA? Maybe the will make it work in countries that are either corrupt or incompetently managed. I don't see why a reasonably competent or reasonably non-corrupt government would allow this.
tempodox 7y ago
> It's a way to get more data from people. Owning other people's money and controlling where it can and cannot flow is way more than a way to get more data.
- sdan 7y ago
  Although I don't know all the aspects around the Libra protocol, I'm fairly sure that FB is only making the Calibra App. The (stablecoin) Libra should be able to be accessed through other wallets overtime (given it is a cryptocurrency). Since it is a cryptocurrency, the whole point is to allow people to send money w/o censorship.
  - lawn 7y ago
    It's not a cryptocurrency though. It even says in their white paper that it's a permissioned system. Calling it a cryptocurrency is just marketing to ride on the hype train.
    - baby 7y ago
      There are permissioned and permissionless cryptocurrencies. Otherwise what is the point of creating such a nomenclature? The whitepaper also says that Libra will launch permissioned and transition to a permissionless cryptocurrency.
      - lawn 7y ago
        Obviously the point is to ride on the hype train by redefining the original meaning. It's similar to a "democracy with a dictator", it just doesn't make sense. Yes, and Facebook hasn't lied to us before? They don't have an actual plan on how to accomplish this transition, which necessarily includes completely redefining the whole system Libra is based on.
      - krageon 7y ago
        It is not a good idea to take what Facebook says at face value. It is worth examining anything they say in an extra critical and sceptical way because of their (at this point) well-documented willingness to lie and bend the truth.
ben_w 7y ago
They may find developing countries already have good alternatives. I’ve not personally used M-Pesa, for example, but that was a thing before bitcoin ever appeared. What even is the USP of Libra?
mirekrusin 7y ago
They should probably kick it off this way from the beginning; stay quiet, do it in some 3rd world country, expand slowly from there to the least resistant countries; at some point it would fail or would be too big to stop by big countries

by pcora 7y ago

perseusprime11 7y ago

They won't be able to do this in India or China.

gwbas1c 7y ago
China is no longer a developing country. They will probably be able to pull something like this off in a country with poor banking.
- perseusprime11 7y ago
  It is DOA if it has no adoption in US, Europe, India and China.
tpmx 7y ago
(Agreed.) So in terms of large-ish economies/populations, maybe they have a chance in parts of Africa (I know some people working at chinese-owned companies hard at work on this market) and maybe parts of South America and SEA? Maybe the will make it work in countries that are either corrupt or incompetently managed. I don't see why a reasonably competent or reasonably non-corrupt government would allow this.

tempodox 7y ago

> It's a way to get more data from people. Owning other people's money and controlling where it can and cannot flow is way more than a way to get more data.

sdan 7y ago
Although I don't know all the aspects around the Libra protocol, I'm fairly sure that FB is only making the Calibra App. The (stablecoin) Libra should be able to be accessed through other wallets overtime (given it is a cryptocurrency). Since it is a cryptocurrency, the whole point is to allow people to send money w/o censorship.
- lawn 7y ago
  It's not a cryptocurrency though. It even says in their white paper that it's a permissioned system. Calling it a cryptocurrency is just marketing to ride on the hype train.
  - baby 7y ago
    There are permissioned and permissionless cryptocurrencies. Otherwise what is the point of creating such a nomenclature? The whitepaper also says that Libra will launch permissioned and transition to a permissionless cryptocurrency.
    - lawn 7y ago
      Obviously the point is to ride on the hype train by redefining the original meaning. It's similar to a "democracy with a dictator", it just doesn't make sense. Yes, and Facebook hasn't lied to us before? They don't have an actual plan on how to accomplish this transition, which necessarily includes completely redefining the whole system Libra is based on.
    - krageon 7y ago
      It is not a good idea to take what Facebook says at face value. It is worth examining anything they say in an extra critical and sceptical way because of their (at this point) well-documented willingness to lie and bend the truth.

ben_w 7y ago

They may find developing countries already have good alternatives. I’ve not personally used M-Pesa, for example, but that was a thing before bitcoin ever appeared. What even is the USP of Libra?

mirekrusin 7y ago

They should probably kick it off this way from the beginning; stay quiet, do it in some 3rd world country, expand slowly from there to the least resistant countries; at some point it would fail or would be too big to stop by big countries