When you're talking about controlling money, politics matter more than "technical merit".

Libra is invite only and they invited their business friends.

Libra consortium is based in Switzerland, so the businesses involved have guaranteed essentially zero government oversight.

Libra's owners have complete control over how much currency, the currency exchange rate, and even inflation rates (note that inflation is actually a tax on wealth).

I can't regulate it. I can't get my government to regulate it. I can't get a non-partisan consortium to regulate it (eg, Bitcoin). Businesses proven to put profits first have complete control. I have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

I don't care about the technical merit; everything about this stinks.

EDIT: and all that is before the privacy aspect. While accounts may be "anonymous", Facebook can use their data to identify you anyway. I don't like these big date companies tracking my friends or website visits. I certainly don't want them tracking my money too.

There's also the wrongthink aspect. Recent leaks from different companies seem to show them exerting political power and banning dissent. My political opinions may align with their now, but I'd bet anything that sooner or later, I'll disagree with them on something. I don't want my financial stability based on a platform that punishes me for thinking or believing "the wrong thing" (which could just be saying something critical about the companies in control).

Libra giving economic power to companies is straight out of fascism.

It certainly intends to circumvent financial controls from democratic institutions. As if someone read parts of a dystopian SciFi novel as a how to manual. So it's certainly anti-democratic.

But technically it lacks the ethnic hatred, anti-intellectualism and gleeful blood-lust of fascism.

> Libra consortium is based in Switzerland, so the businesses involved have guaranteed essentially zero government oversight.

Do you really think a massive US company using some Switzerland corporation is going to protect Facebook and their investors against any regulatory scrutiny?

Yes. Facebook is undoubtedly incorporated in other countries as well. The US could pressure Facebook, but they could move servers elsewhere.

Even if they didn't, the US would have to pressure every single company involved.

More importantly, the US can't just audit bank records from another country. They can't go after Facebook unless they can prove wrongdoing. Offshore accounts protect a lot of bad people for this very reason.

Edit: There also the long term issue. If their currency takes off, the economic power it gives also shields them. Remember too big to fail? We can hardly manage the federal reserve where the government is actually part owner. The situation here would be much worse.

The US just prosecuted Walmart in US courts for stuff their Brazilian HQ did in Brazil.

I'm sure the US could find a way to do the same for Facebook and their investors for how they're using Libra inside the US.

> Libra is invite only and they invited their business friends.

That's a big assumption. They were able to get their business friends to sign on, probably because they are already friends. I'm sure they asked a lot of other groups that were more hesitant, it would have made the initial announcement much more powerful.

Also important to note non-profits, NGOs, and universities are included, and they don't have to pay the $10m buy-in.

> and all that is before the privacy aspect. While accounts may be "anonymous", Facebook can use their data to identify you anyway...

The way Libra is designed, that would probably be a lot more trouble than it is worth. Tracking methods without direct trackers (like 3rd-party cookies) work because there are many data points. Like in browser fingerprinting, you have user agents, JS feature availability, history, etc.

With Libra, you only have an account address and transactions to other anonymous account addresses. One dimension of data like that would be very very hard to trace back to the user, without direct participation from many many merchants.

> There's also the wrongthink aspect.

Fair, however afaik only 1 of the 28 current companies (Facebook) has this attribute.

The initial business group is invite only. My understanding is that they get to decide who else (if anyone) joins.

The real money in banking is in giving good loans. The more personal and immediate your info, the better the loan you can make. Reduced losses lower interest rates or boost profits. Facebook data is the big reason this all make sense for them.

Facebook's anonymous claim is simply a lie. Most people will have known accounts at signup. Even if not, the record of their spending habits ties in with their Facebook habits. For the rest, touching known accounts in the network means you know them or have contacted them. Even a very small number of transactions should be enough to identify the user.

> With Libra, you only have an account address and transactions to other anonymous account addresses.

In theory, you can do that. In practice, most people will have a Calibra account, tied to their FB account, and a pinky promise from Zuckerberg that they won't abuse that data.

> note that inflation is actually a tax on wealth

I thought so as well, initially. But it only taxes a very specific form of wealth... money. As such this tax probably disproportionally affects those unable to transfer their wealth into other forms. Probably once again mostly the poor. Still a valuable tool, but not the great solution I once thought it to be.

Facebook is enough of a problem without letting them control part of the money supply too

> with potentially big negative or positive consequences for the entire world.

What are some of the biggest positive consequences potentially offered by Libra in your opinion?

Literally what they say it's designed for: giving access to the digital economy to the 500m+ people in emerging markets that have internet + phone, but no banking services.

I am confused. I live in a country with "banking services", but almost nobody here uses them. We get paid on debit cards, and then we immediately withdraw the sum in cash. We pay for everything in cash, why would we ever switch to something different? I can only see the negative consequences: the usual privacy implications (some guy can see what I spend my money on); the danger of not being able to spend money at all if they decide so (like the famous Visa/MasterCard WikiLeaks fiasco); fees (2-3% on every purchase? No, thank you.)

"Banking services" does not mean just bank accounts, it means any services that depend on money being elsewhere, not in your hands.

That debit card you use, it's backed by a bank. Most credit cards are backed by banks.

Economic censorship is certainly a valid concern, I think that's the kind of stuff we should be talking about with Libra. Fees on Libra would be way way cheaper than fees on credit cards, I don't think that's a huge concern. (most of the fees on credit cards come from the underlying banks, not the payment networks themselves)

So you can participate in the digital economy, like using (the local equivalent of) Amazon or Spotify.

Both of those don’t seem super essential if you don’t even have a bank account. maybe get a bank account first and then think about a subscription music service, also both amazon and Spotify sell prepaid gift cards for this purpose, which you can buy in any super market here.

Dude but that's the point. They want to give people in developing markets a bank account (equivalent), to skip gift cards.

It's dauntingly scary that people seem to have already forgotten that FB is known and has been ousted for abusing every bit of power and information they are given. And now you're excited that there's another aspect of your personal info, perhaps the most important part that they'll get (some kind of) control over? Increasing their power as a company overall as well.. Really mind blowing!

I don't have to have a Facebook account to use Libra, I don't have to give them any additional information unless I use their app.

> giving access to the digital economy to the 500m+ people in emerging markets that have internet + phone, but no banking services.

I don't really understand the flow.

They are paid in cash for working their low wage jobs now.

How is the cash going to become Libra? Through... what is basically a banking service? Which they don't have access to now?

Might be like how people without a bank go to various businesses that will cash their check for a fee, except they'll give the business cash and get Libra transferred to their account.

Yes. Read the OP. As Marcus points out, oftentimes "lacking access" means "can't afford the consequences of not having any assets on deposit".