[codesushi42]

>It will allow for a worldwide social credit system. If Facebook decides to remove you for wrong speak or wrong think, your money and many services will be inaccessible.

How is this different than what we have today with banks and credit card companies? The government can already freeze your funds. And now there are examples of people being censored online by being dropped by PayPal, which sets a scary precedent no matter how terrible their beliefs are.

>Further, they have no mandate like the central bank does to increase employment. Their mandate is to make money for corporations. This will lead to global social unrest.

That made me chuckle. The Fed has shown no concern for those who save by keeping interest rates so dangerously low for so long. The Fed is also here to make money for huge banks and corporations by making credit so cheap. In the long run this may not be the best for employment. Even if it is, it won't be for wages and wealth disparity.

>This will put some third-world countries in complete control by Facebook. I mean, whoever runs the currency, is the country.

Not much different than the role USD and the Euro play in developing nations today.

>Finally, the regulations on crypto and blockchain are still new. This is in Facebook's advantage as they can start lobbying to have these laws in their favor. They can argue for less transparency, as they are a bank, and this fits with their new privacy marketing message.

And what laws does Facebook plan to propose that are worse than the regulation (or lack thereof) that exists for the financial industry today?

>On the other hand, under no circumstances will I accept a world where Facebook started the one world currency.

I agree. I hope it is not Facebook that wins this game. But your other comments are very reactionary.

[TomMckenny]

While the grandparent post may have misstated the threat, there is a real danger here.

It is not just a new style of credit card. And while it will act like a bank, it appears it will dodge regulation and consumer protection (limited as it is) under the word "cryptocurrency" or some other neologism poorly understood by the public and legislators.

Will Libra deposits be covered under FDIC? Will it be subject to closures when there is a panic? What rights do depositors have in the event of wrongful transactions?

So it's great if it allows people under repressive or kleptocratic governments more security and freedom. It's fine if it's just a toy to send money to friends. But it's another thing if it's just a bank with an unstated "depositor beware" philosophy. It'd also be a lot less worrisome if the company implementing it had a bit better reputation.

[codesushi42]

>Will Libra deposits be covered under FDIC?

That's not Libra's use case. It is pegged to other assets; it is meant to be transactional, not held as a store of value.

>Will it be subject to closures when there is a panic?

Why do you consider that a good thing? Would you really rather have your money held by some bank in Argentina then?

Besides, the idea of cryptocurrency is that the money supply is not governed by policymakers, which will help to avoid the conditions leading to those kind of panics. In the case of Libra, it's pegged and its monetary policy is more decentralized than that of a central bank.

>What rights do depositors have in the event of wrongful transactions?

What rights do you think that you have today? You're being subject to wrongful transactions all of the time in the form of outrageous banking fees. Make no mistake, the cost of "wrongful transactions" is being foisted upon you, plus much more in the bank's own interest of making money.

[GoblinSlayer]

"always beware" philosophy is universal: there's no silver bullet, including insurance.

[pathseeker]

>the Fed has shown no concern for those who save by keeping interest rates so dangerously low

There is no such thing as a dangerously low interest rate. The atmosphere won't suddenly catch on fire if you don't get a certain percent of risk free money. Additionally, "those who save" is not part of their mandate. They target unemployment and inflation.

>The Fed is also here to make money for huge banks and corporations by making credit so cheap.

Cheap credit isn't good banks anymore than it's good for individuals. Low interest means low mortgages, etc. If it's good for businesses, it's good for people for the same reason.

>In the long run this may not be the best for employment.

There hasn't been evidence otherwise so far. There has been plenty of evidence of money shortages causing lots of unemployment (see all busts of the early 1900s).

>Even if it is, it won't be for wages and wealth disparity.

High interest is absolutely terrible for wealth disparity. It's literally free money for people with money.

[codesushi42]

>There is no such thing as a dangerously low interest rate. The atmosphere won't suddenly catch on fire if you don't get a certain percent of risk free money.

You are completely delusional. There is a huge risk to global liquidity. We won't be able to rely on printing money to get us out of the next downturn.

>There has been plenty of evidence of money shortages causing lots of unemployment (see all busts of the early 1900s).

As Edward Thorp would tell you, bubbles thrive during times of cheap leverage (read: credit). Look at the crises of the last century.

>High interest is absolutely terrible for wealth disparity. It's literally free money for people with money.

You seem completely unaware that low interest rates are a tax on you in the form of inflation. The wealthy have enough to hold other assets that can more than offset this, and they can hold much more leverage. The average person, not so much.

[bamboozled]

On the other hand, is a social media platform and private company with a fairly bad track record of respecting human rights to privacy and democracy the best group to solve these issues?