Since Facebook launched Libra in June, "Facebook Cryptocurrency" has been the headline of the media. Search for the two words mentioned above, and you'll find articles with the words "crypto" and "Facebook" – both commercial and mainstream media and technology companies – in some combination . The Libra Association said in its groundbreaking white paper that their upcoming stable currency is a "low-volatility cryptocurrency."
- 5G Chain Network - New Era Spark Program (Funding) Rural Revitalization Closed Meeting is about to be held
- Jia Nan Zhi Zhi will be listed in the US, what is the composition of the “blockchain first stock”?
- Can the founders easily take half of the "decentralized scam" that raised 30 million?
- Wuzhen finale dialogue: the danger of domestic public chain? Da Hongfei, Shuai Chu, Chang Hao, Starry Sky... 7 guests talked with each other, what do they say?
- Data observation: Ethereum DApp ecology begins to recover
- European Central Bank board member: Globally stablecoin untested, may trigger risks in multiple policy areas
They are not completely wrong. At first glance, the project seems to be a cryptocurrency, showing off a blockchain they claim will be open source, protected by a network of qualified nodes, and so on.
However, there has been a fierce debate about what Libra is all about. Because the term "cryptocurrency" is used in the white paper, the agency calls it "cryptocurrency," as do other institutions and industry insiders.
However, there are also people who publicly condemn Libra for claiming to be a true cryptocurrency. Nick Szabo is one of them. It is believed that his achievements in the field of encryption have inspired Nakamoto to create Bitcoin. He is also the founder of the idea behind the concept of smart contracts. Recently, he resolutely opposed Libra as what is called "cryptocurrency." On Twitter, when asked about Libra's status as a "cryptocurrency", Saab simply replied:
“To call Libra a cryptocurrency is like saying a doll is a baby.”
I know this is interesting, but it is a good summary of this.
In recent years, the term “cryptocurrency” has lost its meaning; it has been abstracted by investors and projects that have flooded the industry, and these projects are expected to receive huge financial gains. "Cryptographic currency" has become a popular word to some extent, not only used by aspiring entrepreneurs, but also by the news media to refer to any form of digital currency. However, according to some stubborn decentralists and cryptocurrency supporters, not all digital assets are cryptocurrencies.
At this point, Saab seems to have given a thumbs up to Libra, because Libra may (and is likely) blocked by regulators. For those who have not noticed this, French and German regulators announced on Thursday/Friday that they will take steps to prevent Libra from developing and/or launching in the EU on the grounds of criminal risk and the ability to threaten fiat currency hegemony.
In addition, there are concerns about the centralization of Libra. When the Libra blockchain is launched, it is expected to be supported by a network of nodes operated by large companies such as Visa, Uber, Spotify and PayPal. David Marcus, the head of Facebook's participation in the project, denied that these nodes would be like Gestapo in 1984, but the fear of centralization (and the resulting cybersecurity) is still strong.
This makes Libra different from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is touted as a “unlicensed” network, and anyone can access it as long as they have an Internet connection, not just those with $10 million in assets (one of Libra’s node thresholds is able to provide $10 million) .