back to article You can trust us to run a digital currency – we're Facebook: Exec begs Europe not to ban Libra

The Facebook exec in charge of its Libra cryptocurrency effort has sought to assure European governments that their fears are unfounded… by telling them they’re wrong and Facebook knows better. Co-creator of the program David Marcus took to Twitter this week to address clearly stated concerns from the French and German …

  1. Shadow Systems Silver badge

    I don't trust FaceBook to wipe my arse...

    They'd use rusty, sharpened, spinning steel wool on an industrial grade power sander, lube with metal microblades in it, & then bill me for the medical procedures required to put my arse back on, all while live streaming the whole thing to a PPV Youtube channel for the world to see, and charge me to watch it while they did it.

    Trust them with my wallet? Not on your fekkin' life.

    1. DougS Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: I don't trust FaceBook to wipe my arse...

      They'd use rusty, sharpened, spinning steel wool on an industrial grade power sander

      You have to admit though, there'd be not a speck of feces left on your ass after that.

      1. R3sistance

        Re: I don't trust FaceBook to wipe my arse...

        indeed, instead you'd have been showered in the feces of the previous user as they re-use the same piece of steel wool without cleaning it.

      2. Psmo Bronze badge

        Re: I don't trust FaceBook to wipe my arse...

        Or indeed any arse left...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I don't trust FaceBook to wipe my arse...

      10 minutes after launch, they are going to be suing Libré Office for breach of trade mark or some similar carp.

  2. Stoneshop Silver badge
    Devil

    Howls of derisive laughter

    n.t.

  3. sabroni Silver badge
    Coffee/keyboard

    Facebook remains just as trustworthy and reliable as it always was.

    You guys!

  4. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Devil

    And so, it begins...

    Having accumulated sufficient material to influence/compromise/blackmail decision makers their real agenda begins to emerge...

  5. Rich 11 Silver badge

    1:1 inequivalence

    “Libra will be backed 1:1 by a basket of strong currencies. This means that for any unit of Libra to exist, there must be the equivalent value in its reserve.”

    Until the day the T&Cs are quietly updated to say 1.1:1, then 1.5:1, 2:1...

    1. Edward Phillips

      Re: 1:1 inequivalence

      It's the words "basket" and "strong" doing the heavy lifting there - how big is the basket and what's a "strong" currency?

      Anyway, there are plenty of currencies which are officially pegged 1:x with the US Dollar - it doesn't mean that they're not currencies. Telling countries that your currency isn't a currency because it has a fixed exchange rate with existing currencies is ... not instantly persuasive.

      1. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: 1:1 inequivalence

        "Telling countries that your currency isn't a currency because it has a fixed exchange rate with existing currencies is ... not instantly persuasive."

        They appear to be trying (badly) to say that because Libra is pegged they are not producing their own fiat currency.

        Of course, this is garbage. Unless the basket of currencies is exactly equal to the proportions of each fiat that is being turned into Libra at any one moment, and is instantly hedged according to the currency that the person wants to change Libra into later, it cannot be 1:1.

        Cross-border delayed transactions into an as-yet unknown currency cannot be 1:1. Facebook is (once again) lying.

        1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: 1:1 lying

          Nah, they're just continuing in their oh-so-humble vein of showing they know better than everyone else.

        2. Martin M

          Re: 1:1 inequivalence

          The 1:1 backing means that each Libra token is underpinned by a basket of currencies in fixed proportions held in reserve by the association, each stored in an appropriately denominated custody account. For example, the basket underpinning one Libra might be $0.90 and £0.10. The intrinsic value of the currency comes from a promise to redeem tokens on request for the current value of the basket. The use of custody accounts means this should (in theory) work even if the association goes bust.

          This means that from the point of view of any particular currency, the value of Libra (as seen from the perspective of a given currency) will vary over time. If the dollar is at par with the pound (to keep the maths simple) and with the above basket, it would cost £1 or $1 to buy a Libra token - *excluding trading costs*. If the pound subsequently drops to $0.80, then the value of Libra in pounds rises to 0.90/0.80+0.10=£1.225, but in dollars drops to $0.90 + 0.10*0.80 = $0.98.

          It’s basically an ETF with improved visibility of tokens in issue. The real world collateral management and auditing still relies on trusted third parties and has to be very robust.

          Whether this makes sense for unsophisticated retail customers, let alone the unbanked, is a whole other question. It replaces very liquid markets for fiat money - whose intrinsic value is underpinned by government guarantees that it can be used to extinguish tax liabilities - with a token underpinned by a reserve held by a private organisation is a whole other question. It also exposes holders to currency fluctuations, which is probably highly undesirable.

          Regarding maintaining 1:1 backing, this is solvable. When the bulk resellers buy x tokens, the association will purchase currencies in the correct quantities - e.g. with the above basket purchased using USD, and dollar at par with the pound, they’ll buy £0.10*x in USD on the FX market. They might have to pay say $0.1002*x to do this, depending on transaction costs, the (moving) exchange rate, market depth and bid-offer spread. They charge the reseller ($0.9+$0.1002)*x, put $0.90*x into a dollar reserve account, put £0.10*x into a GBP reserve account, and mint x tokens. Everything balances.

          The reseller takes on trading costs and an unhedgable market risk during the issuance (or burn) transaction, acting as a market maker. They continue to be exposed to market risk for as long as they hold the tokens, and may choose to hedge this risk or not. When buying and selling on exchanges, they will buy and sell to consumers (or other intermediaries) with a wider spread to compensate for all these costs.

          There is a problem if you have a basket of three currencies and can only get one of the necessary FX trades done. In practice that’s vanishingly unlikely give the depth of liquidity in the Common FX currency pairs.

          What is interesting is that their white paper mentions rebalancing the basket, e.g. changing the ratio of currencies, but not how it will work. It’s valuable in some circumstances but hard. Firstly because when the association does it, they will incur large trading costs to buy and sell currencies to bring the collateral into balance, and this will break the 1:1 collateralisation without an external capital injection.

          1. DavCrav Silver badge

            Re: 1:1 inequivalence

            OK, so Libra is almost exactly like special drawing rights.

            So the value of your Facebook funbucks changes over time. I'm sure people who lose when that happens will be oh so terribly impressed with Facebook. This is just a little bit of FX trading with added privacy violation then.

            1. Martin M

              Re: 1:1 inequivalence

              Yeah, pretty much. Except (if I remember correctly) I don’t think SDRs can be held by private parties?

              Agreed on the changing value thing too. Unless you get paid in Libra and most of your expenses are in Libra, and you really want a ‘my recent transactions’ tab on your Facebook profile, it’s probably not a good idea...

  6. Blockchain commentard Silver badge

    They've made more money in the last few years than most European countries have so why not? Ha, ha. Only joking. Ban Libra and Facebook from Europe I say.

  7. el kabong Silver badge

    This is complex stuff, you are too stupid to understading it, leave it to us we know better

    That is basically what faecebook is saying and you know what? That statement is partially right because it is complex stuff and the politicians will never be able to understand it. But faecebook is also partially wrong because faecebook does not know it better, faecebook is just as stupid as the politicians are.

    1. R3sistance

      Re: This is complex stuff, you are too stupid to understading it, leave it to us we know better

      Also most countries have a Treasury that is run by people that do have a significantly better understanding of it than either Politicians or Facebook.

      1. JimboSmith Silver badge

        Re: This is complex stuff, you are too stupid to understading it, leave it to us we know better

        The OMRLP (Official Monster Raving Loony Party) had a policy at one General Election:

        The Loonies propose that a minimum requirement of Maths ‘O’ Level be made for all government ministers and their treasury advisers, thereby preventing two different rates of inflation when used to calculate raises in both state benefits and taxes.

        Seems sensible for Facebook currency employees too.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is complex stuff, you are too stupid to understading it, leave it to us we know better

        Of course Facebook knows money better.

        They are filthy rich so at least they know how to make money!

        And they do it with a "free" product.

        While those "other guys" can't get their yearly budget in order and harass us each year for additional hand-outs because of it!

        How is that saying: out of the frying pan and into the fire?

  8. Warm Braw Silver badge

    Delivering meaningful value

    Is it possible to use the word "meaningful" in a more meaningless context?

    1. Marki Mark

      Re: Delivering meaningful value

      Brexit "Meaningful" votes?

  9. LDS Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

    It looks the current systems work well enough. In which way it would be better? Better for Zuck who will be able to slurp all transaction data, of course, something valuable that still escapes its claws.

    Backed 1:1 by currencies that can fluctuate one against the others? Looks plain BS - or a nice way to say "put your real money in our coffers, we'll give you some vouchers you can spend only at businesses that bowed to us, at a rate we decide!"

    1. Tom Paine Silver badge

      Re: "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

      It's like the old company store system*, except it's global, and they expect everyone to sign up for it voluntarily.

      * per the song "16 Tons"

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

        For me a better payment system would in preference to a promissory note or worse an electronic promise would be physical coins, ideally in gold or silver and definitely not with zuck's head stamped on it.

        I just know there are millions of ovine followers of FB who will go for 'social currency' but they are people who think reading what a celebrity has for breakfast is interesting, thank deity I am not one of them.

        1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

          Re: not with zuck's head stamped on it.

          But what if we use Zuck's actual head as the stamp...? You know, between each coin and 250 ton hydraulic press.

        2. Public Citizen
          Coat

          Re: "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

          Unless it was Zucks actual head placed on the stamping die and then the press activated.

      2. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

        Re: "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

        You load 16 tons, what do you get? Bow-legged britches and a humpback shirt.

      3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: "Libra is designed to be a better payment network"

        It's like the old company store system*, except it's global

        But hey - since this was during the bad old days of largely unregulated industry it must be good huh? BB certainly thinks so..

  10. Wellyboot Silver badge

    Backed by real money 1:1

    Facebook taking real money deposits and then using its own made up currency for transactions, an excellent way for the proles to pay directly for more snooping.

    That sounds like a bank to me and US banking regulators are not a group to annoy.

    As a balance point a major credit card company (rhymes with Harclays) now pass customer details to social media sites so they can improve their service offerings push adverts to the customers who have opted out from direct marketing. I'll make a running guess they aren't alone.

    Merchant Bankers - cockney slang for....

    1. Tom Paine Silver badge

      Re: Backed by real money 1:1

      Banks don't typically issue their own currencies. This doesn't sound like a (retail or merchant) bank to me, it sounds like a sovereign nation's central bank.

      1. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: Backed by real money 1:1

        It sounds a bit like special drawing rights, rather than a currency. Still, ban hammer is the best and only option here.

      2. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Banks don't typically issue their own currencies

        There speaks someone who's never tried to spend a Scottish fiver ....

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Banks don't typically issue their own currencies

          There speaks someone who's never tried to spend a Scottish fiver

          Strictly speaking they are not legal tender, even in Scotland.. The only reason that the Scottish banks are allowed to issue the notes in the first place is that they are required to back the currency as a form of promissary note rather legal tender (and the banks are required to have a sufficient amount of GPB in the form of banknotes or gold to cover said promises)

          Some places in England will accept them - especially in the English side of border area. Most of the nothern motorway service stations will also accept them. Outside of that most shops won't accept them but you can (usually) exchange them in a local bank (if you can find one).

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Backed by real money 1:1

      In some ways they're just a longer term brokerage - holding client funds in escrow. in others it's similar to a unit trust / tracker fund. They hold a portfolio of investments - for example they might hold shares in all the FTSE 100 index companies in the same proportions as they make up that index - and then you put money into the fund and get paid whatever return they make on that (minus their cut). The total invested amount fluctuates as people put money in and take it out, but the overall portfolio doesn't have to change that much - they just buy more shares in the right proportions as their investment funds increase.

      Then each year they do a quick change of what shares they hold as companies leave or join the FTSE 100 - and the proportions that make up the index are changed.

      Except in this case there's no profit to be made. If people are using it as a normal means of payment, then what they lose on exchange fluctuations going into one currency, they should gain on transactions going the other way. Then they just need to have a fund that's slightly larger than they need - and as people use more of the stuff they can slowly increase their pot of currency. If it's being used regularly - the overall amount of libra currency shouldn't change all that much - just move around.

      Just buying AAA rated government bonds they should be able to turn a slight profit on the float - which if they've got any sense they'll retain in the float to cover those days when currrencies move a lot.

      In theory you might be able to move money around between different currencies and do some arbitrage on Facebook - but I guess they'll limit transaction size to stop that. And then they could have a published daily conversion rate to each currency.

      They could easily be licensed to stop them from losing too much of the clients' money. Say by forcing them to hold reserves and giving them a banking license so they've got access to Central Banks emergency loans. PayPal had to have a banking license in the EU - I don't know how they're regulated in the US.

      I don't think the financial implications are all that serious. Having typed all that, I've just remembered that the banks who issue Scottish pound notes have to hold an equal amount of sterling in order to be allowed to do so. So there's already a UK precedent - and they'd want to weight their currency basket to the markets they operate in to avoid risk themselves anyway.

      The serious problem is privacy - and their ability to identify people online from advert to purchase. And the fact that they'll be able to tie all that back to the bank account or credit card used to put money into Libra - which means they'll be able to link all that into credit records and also search history. Oh and their not-at-all creepy global facial recognition database - that somehow FB have been allowed to build without the massive outcry if a government had tried to do it.

      Financially I'm unworried. On privacy grounds, I rate this: Fuck Off and Die!

  11. Blofeld's Cat
    Devil

    Hmm ...

    This raises a few questions in my mind:

    How many Bitcoin can you get for a Libra? How many Cowrie shells?

    Will Google allow you to pay for your AdWords in Libra?

    Does that NIgerian Prince accept Libra?

    Are people that stupid? (rhetorical)

  12. Nick Kew
    Thumb Down

    Poor article

    You (El Reg) have every right to attack Facebook. But please at least give us a reasoned argument, rather than an ill-considered rant!

    Facebook has every right to evangelise its proposals, which seem to be the subject of the article. You can disagree with those proposals (as some politicians are doing) and you can present your arguments: that's all normal debate. AFAICS Facebook is not arrogantly saying "you're wrong" as characterised in the article; rather it's arguing "we're right, and here's why". You can of course disagree with their arguments, but when you instead attack the messenger it smells of an update to Godwin.

    For what it's worth, I note that one of the points at issue in the debate is that cryptocurrency transactions are harder to trace than regular bank transactions. Methinks the usual Reg position on that argument (e.g. when applied to any story about getting rid of cash) is that privacy is a virtue.

    Also for what it's worth, I haven't dabbled in any cryptocurrency. But it seems to me that the Libra looks like a big advance on Bitcoin by virtue of being backed by 'real' currency. Insofar as that's a Bad Thing, it's because those currencies are themselves routinely debased by governments and by fractional reserve (banks).

    p.s. I expect I'll get downvotes. You won't persuade me to sign up with Facebook: I never have, and I even block their infernal "like" in my browser.

    1. sabroni Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Poor article

      Poor comment.

      You're not wrong of course, but I am right.

    2. DavCrav Silver badge

      Poor comment

      "You (El Reg) have every right to attack Facebook. But please at least give us a reasoned argument, rather than an ill-considered rant!"

      They already did this before. And the politicians are doing it, both before and now. But Facebook isn't listening and still singing the same tune, so sarcasm is perhaps a better route.

      "Facebook has every right to evangelise its proposals, which seem to be the subject of the article."

      And we have every right to take the piss. Which is the subject of this article.

      "You can disagree with those proposals"

      Oh thank you for permission. You probably meant 'you might disagree...'.

      "(as some politicians are doing)"

      More or less as everyone other than Facebook is doing. Nobody not employed by them is saying this is a good thing.

      "AFAICS Facebook is not arrogantly saying "you're wrong" as characterised in the article; rather it's arguing "we're right, and here's why"."

      No, they are saying 'we're right, because [waffle]'.

      "Also for what it's worth, I haven't dabbled in any cryptocurrency. But it seems to me that the Libra looks like a big advance on Bitcoin by virtue of being backed by 'real' currency."

      Not really. You give Facebook real currency, and they give you funbucks. If you try to change your funbucks for a different currency then Facebook has to either dip into its reserves of that currency, or do some FX trading.

      So, like a bank. A global bank that is not beholden to any regulators anywhere.

      "Insofar as that's a Bad Thing, it's because those currencies are themselves routinely debased by governments and by fractional reserve (banks)."

      FRB is not the bogeyman that everyone who hasn't understood the 30-minute seminar on it seems to think it is. FRB is just where a loan to someone else is also considered an asset. If I lend you money, the fact that you owe me money means I hold an asset. People who say FRB debases currency don't seem to grasp that that asset has a monetary value, and when you include that on the balance sheet, banks are at (more or less) 100% reserve, in fact above that usually.

      100% backed up lending is impossible unless you want to lent money only by billionaires. All banking is FRB.

      1. Nick Kew
        Thumb Up

        Re: Poor comment

        Thanks (and thumbs up) for the demonstration of doing all the Right Things in your critique of my post. I don't have strong enough opinions on the subject to take you up on your real arguments there.

        Let me just pick you up on your final point about FRB. It's one of those things that work in principle, but it's wide open to corruption, when you lend money that'll never be repaid. Then you get a bubble, as in the early years of this century when it drove a hugely damaging bubble in property prices.

        Not FRB on its own, but FRB in an environment of interest rates driven by a broken policy that let money supply rip while pretending all was stable. As in the Pork Futures Warehouse, the FRB was a then-future debasement. But that's a whole nother story.

        1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Poor comment

          Nick Kew?

          Nick Clegg, Shirley?

        2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Poor comment

          Nick Kew,

          You don't understand fractional reserve banking at all.

          FRB is about cash. A bank must hold a certain reserve of cash-y money (and electronic) so that it can settle all calls on cash for a certain period. This stops them running out of cash and having panics and so a bank run. This is because your theoretical notional bank has lots of loans (its assets) which it can't call in immediately and lots of saving accounts (its liabilities) where the customers can all theoretically demand their money back all at once.

          Because that's what banking is. Liquidity Transformation. Taking short-term deposits and turning them into long-term loans - which allows for long term investment in the economy.

          When it all goes titsup then you require a Central Bank to be able to loan them unlimited cash at punitive interest rates - as happened in 2008, all of which loans were paid back by 2010 at a nice profit to the government.

          That covers cash. Liquidity. A problem for banks that perform liquidity transformation. Hence the requirement for Central Banks to save the day by loaning emergency liquidity.

          But banks also have to be solvent (if they're not they don't get loans from central banks they get taken over). To be solvent means their assets must at least equal their liabilities. And again, they lend at risk and long term - so their assets may fall in value. While their liabilities don't change.

          Thus banks must hold reserves of assets. This isn't cash required to remain liquid - these are the assets owned by the bank itself (it's shareholders). And they're designed to cover the losses if say the housing market crashes, and all those mortgages get paid back at 80% of book value. The last Bank of England stress test I saw talked about the big banks holding something around 13-14% of their total balance sheet in their own assets (the minimum requirement was around 11%) - which theoretically allowed them to weather a 2 year recession with a 20% drop in house prices and inflation of -1% (i.e. deflation) and still have sufficient assets to meet their minimum liquidity requirements. Which Basel III sets at around 7% (from memory too lazy to check).

      2. Carpet Deal 'em Bronze badge

        Re: Poor comment

        100% backed up lending is impossible unless you want to lent money only by billionaires. All banking is FRB.

        Full-reserve banking simply means the bank has to be able to cover all immediate liabilities at any one time; the making of illiquid loans simply requires the acquisition of illiquid deposits(which already exist in the form of CDs). The price of borrowing would go up, but the cost of failure wouldn't be as widespread as FRB tends to make it.

        1. DavCrav Silver badge

          Re: Poor comment

          "Full-reserve banking simply means the bank has to be able to cover all immediate liabilities at any one time; the making of illiquid loans simply requires the acquisition of illiquid deposits(which already exist in the form of CDs). The price of borrowing would go up, but the cost of failure wouldn't be as widespread as FRB tends to make it."

          I know this is very late but I was strolling through and I thought I might sas well point out another major flaw in full-reserve banking.

          If you require a complete match-up between liquidity, then all consumer savings accounts would have to pay negative interest or have lock-in.

  13. Mage Silver badge
    Pirate

    Trust them?

    Deliberate theft of personal information, inc from other apps to Facebook (e.g. their Whatsapp)

    Tracking of ANYONE, not just users, via the [F] button javascript on 3rd party sites

    Selling all this information to Advertisers and Political parties etc.

    Enabling damage to Democracy by allowing fake accounts, adverts and content.

    Enabling Hate Crime

    Enabling Scam adverts

    Bugs in API / Websites allowing 3rd parties to scrape supposedly private information.

    !

    No doubt they can do the infrastructure and make it "work" after a fashion. However it will "steal" personal information. Even the USA forbade US Banks to use information from transfers & cheque clearance other than to do the funds transfer. Facebook has proved they will lie about what they do, ignore regulations, exploit users and both deliberately and accidentally take & expose personal information.

    !

    Facebook, Amazon, Google etc are not fit or suitable organisations to run either Payment systems or a Crypo-currency.

    It's a solution that only benefits Facebook. Also they should be forbidden from buying PayPal.

  14. Oengus Silver badge

    and the pigs are fueled and ready to fly

    “While Facebook and [its Libra-focused subsidiary] Calibra have made broad public statements about privacy, they have failed to specifically address the information handling practices that will be in place to secure and protect personal information,"

    How many times have facebook been caught lying about their protection of personal information but they still try to get us to believe their spiel.

  15. Chronos Silver badge

    So if you’re listening, bank regulators and European politicians: quit your worrying and complaining. Facebook remains just as trustworthy and reliable as it always was.

    Exactly. Think of a round figure then subtract another number¹ from it.

    ¹ an extremely large number, more than the estimate of electrons in the Universe

  16. Adrian 4 Silver badge

    No worries

    Once facebook's replacement for old-fashioned paper-based voting is in place, governments won't be able to be hold back progress like this.

  17. Sam Therapy
    FAIL

    Run a currency?

    I don't trust Arsebook to run a bath.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trust and Fartbook? Really?

    Fartbook can't be trusted with anything and especially money.

    Just don't give it a banking license and then see how it fares?

  19. N2 Silver badge

    Trust Facebook?

    Don't make me laugh,

    No, No and No.

  20. Mike Moyle Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Kudos, Mr. McCarthy!

    I would like to pass on my compliments, Mr. McCarthy. Honestly, while your commentaries have always (IMO) been well-researched and solidly written -- even if I disagreed with your conclusions -- up until recently they have seemed to lack the (if you will) "spark of snark" that has always been the Register's defining characteristic. Lately, however, I have been noticing a greater facility in melding the two into enjoyable and truly Reg-worthy articles.

    I just wanted you to know that someone has noticed and approves. Keep up the good work!

  21. JohnFen Silver badge

    We're Facebook

    That's genuinely hilarious. "We're Facebook" is one of the major reasons why the Libra effort is dangerous and should be rejected out of hand.

  22. a pressbutton

    On the upside

    Well, I am sure I will be able to pay my uber ride-share fee with Libra.

  23. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  24. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

    “Recently there's been a lot of talk about how Libra could threaten the sovereignty of nations when it comes to money,”

    Too late: the Euro has already removed that...

  25. Neoc

    Lightbulb comes on.

    Even assuming that Libra wasn't created as a way for FB to track your spendings even better than it is now <sorry, got to take a break due to bouts of laughter> another major reason is right there in their statement: "This means that for any unit of Libra to exist, there must be the equivalent value in its reserve"

    Who can you purchase Libra from (at least originally)? FB. Who gets to hold all that money in "reserve"? FB. Who will make sure that the conditions for converting Libra back to other currencies are nigh-impossible to fulfil? FB. And who gets to collect the interest from all that moolah? Yep.

  26. sbt Silver badge
    Flame

    The alienation of the public sphere continues apace.

    Corporate greed, governmental disfunction and apathy, an unwillingness on the part of the average citizen to pay for services or content and understand the consequences of not doing so have led us here. Yesterday, it was news, culture and marketplaces. Today it's elections, money and justice. Tomorrow, it's power and freedom.

  27. JimmyPage Silver badge
    FAIL

    TL;DR - what's the point then ?

    By carefully explaining what Libra isn't meant to do - with what seems quite a long list, you do find yourself asking why are Facebook bothering at all ?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019