Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, invest2lose said:

correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't they joining because they'll have voting rights and stewardship of the project and access to the profits from this coin?

There will be profits only if people use it. Are you saying it will be used on a massive scale and generate enormous profit? Isn’t that what Ripple and XRP holders want? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Blog URL:  https://coil.com/p/Hodor/David-Schwartz-and-Facebook-Coin-/UiNoDHA-J Curious about Facebook's new coin, Libra?  I've collected David Schwartz's recent comments on it in my latest @coil

This Libra thing has the smell of being a hurried botch job.  DS makes me laugh, my guess he is being kind in his criticism.  It is such a confection of ideas that do not fit together that if you touc

Thanks for reading, @cryptoxrp! Even though I'd like to ignore it as 'just another stablecoin,' as you say, I am conflicted.  I think CryptoEri was correct in her assessment that it's a significa

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, AlvaroXRP said:

That's exactly what a blockchain/DLT solves. Interaction between parties that don't trust each other. So I guess it is being used properly, right? 

I think FB solution is a threat for VISA, MC or any Paypal because their business model is based on the fees coming from transaction processing. Sooner  or later they will try to come up with their own P2P solution  (e.g. like Visa recently did with B2B Connect). They joined this partnership because they want to have insider info and control the development. Do you remember when 15 senior executives from JP Morgan visited Ripple's office in 12/2017? One year later they announced JPM coin...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Kahina Van Dyke 's response

 Congratulations David Marcus. We need the best and brightest and most influential minds shaping the future of financial services so that all people can participate in a more equitable and prosperous future. Totally agree that Blockchain and digital assets are the tools to unlock that future.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Libra's launch (aka Zuck Bucks) have clearly gotten US and European Regulators/Central Bankers shook; it may just push them towards Ripple and XRP at an accelerated pace.

Why? Ripple has been engaging with them for more than half a decade now but they have been dragging their feet. Facebook announces Libra without any olive branch extended to the existing powers that be making them feel threatened. There may come a time in the near future that the governments may realize that FB can't be stopped and they might want to fight fire with fire; what other entity/digital asset/tech than Ripple/XRP/ILP?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTxrPP said:

Facebook announces Libra without any olive branch extended to the existing powers that be making them feel threatened.

Great observation! I’d love to see this rude awakening be the catalyst for regulatory action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tokyoliving said:

When one makes a claim asaying "I respect ... and wrong" without backing it up with an intelligent response is itself wrong. Give people something to work with.

He mainly argues that any of the entity that control part of the reserve and one of the pegged assets can destroy the system, but it's a multi-asset strategy exactly to solve this problem. One asset collapse? There are 20 more that can sustain the price and have the reserve and the underlying value. He never explained why in his opinion one single entity can destroy the system.

And he's accusing Libra to be permissioned when the whitepaper itself says it's permisisoned, but that is part of the system. Isn't XRP permissioned right now? Ripple can decide which validators take part in the "official" UNL.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tulo said:

One asset collapse? There are 20 more that can sustain the price and have the reserve and the underlying value.

How would that work?  If Libra is fully backed, then a collapse of any single backing asset would make it lose its full redeemability and essentially render it Tether 2.0.  Diversifying backing assets in this instance compounds the risk rather than mitigate it;  CDOs anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hodor said:

Blog URL:  https://coil.com/p/Hodor/David-Schwartz-and-Facebook-Coin-/UiNoDHA-J

Curious about Facebook's new coin, Libra?  I've collected David Schwartz's recent comments on it in my latest @coil blog!

Tnx @Hodor, I fully endorse your conclusion:

"A counter-party asset (like Libra) is subject to the whims of 'reserve owners;' those (Facebook) who hold the assets backing the stablecoin.

Libra is no different, despite attempts to gloss over this concept."

However lets not get worked up about just another stablecoin. And especially not about one which is still on the drawing board and with a team around it that seems not to precisely understand what they are doing..... a lot of talk and wishful thinking imho.

Edited by cryptoxrp
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cryptoxrp said:

However lets not get worked up about just another stablecoin. And especially not about one which is still on the drawing board and with a team around it that seems not to precisely understand what they are doing..... a lot of talk and wishful thinking imho.

Thanks for reading, @cryptoxrp!

Even though I'd like to ignore it as 'just another stablecoin,' as you say, I am conflicted.  I think CryptoEri was correct in her assessment that it's a significant development that we all must seriously consider, regardless of its merits or motivations. 

One danger that nobody has considered is that this development 'ups the ante' and has the potential to antagonize existing central banks that have no desire to work with the product of a company whose very mismanagement of personal data helped prompt new laws in Europe. 

Regulators and legislators could use this as a divisive issue to make crypto political, which is very bad for all of us, IMO. 

What's worse?  Crypto being associated with Silk Road, or crypto being associated with a company that has monetized our private information?  I'd say the latter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confident that you'll reflect on this and realize that FB may just have provided the impetus for some real regulatory clarity, whether intentional or not.

If "political" aspects of crypto make you uncomfortable, that's understandable, but I don't think drawing exclusive either/or dichotomies is very helpful...

The right frame will come to you, if history is any guide! :)

Edited by NightJanitor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.