As far as I can see sending money with Libra would be quite similar to sending money with say Ethereum. Transfering ETH from one wallet to another is semi anonymous and cheap, like one US cent. However converting fiat to ETH or back at the other end costs in the tens of dollars and requires things like being videoed holding your passport for KYC and AML. It tends to take a few days to be approved. I think the KYC process costs companies like $40. So it's not a cheap or quick process if you include that stuff and fairly traceable compared to cash.

Facebook may have an advantage on KYC as it already knows it's clients through their facebook activity and so may be able to get the costs lower which could be a competitive advantage there.

>Facebook may have an advantage on KYC as it already knows it's clients through their facebook activity and so may be able to get the costs lower which could be a competitive advantage there.

What Facebook might know about someone is completely worthless when it comes to KYC. In the country I live there are even some government issued identity documents that won't cut it.

I think you're right on the money (no pun intended). The technology is there. If government doesn't get in the way (which they will), market forces would dictate that a company (Facebook or other) would use this technology (Blockchain) to make these sort of transactions more efficient and cost-effective for everyone willing to adopt them.

A distributed ledger is not more efficient than a centralized ledger. You give up efficiency in exchange for distributing the trust.