Interpretation of Libra: A revolution covering 2.7 billion people? Still a whimsical girl

On June 21st, the Carbon Chain Value and the Endless Community launched a new “Carbon Chain Consensus Dialogue”. We invited the once-popular article “Wanzi tells Facebook digital currency: origin, meaning and consequences” by Meng Yan, Dots Institutional investor community CEO Zheng Di, dForce founder Yang Mindao, Maker China district head Pan Chao and Guosheng blockchain analyst Ren Heyi, everyone around "Libra: a revolution covering 2.7 billion people? Or Facebook whimsical gimmick" The theme is a positive and negative debate. The content of the debate can be described as a lot of dry goods, unique viewpoints and clear logic. After reading, let you have a clear understanding of Libra's positioning, mode and future development.

The Carbon Chain Value Editor has compiled all the conversations to readers. The following is the full text of the article, Enjoy

 

• Awards for Call for Papers | Celebrating the first anniversary of the PlatON Cloud Map release!
• Twitter Featured: Connect V God, say your worship of the Ethereum application Top 3
• Technical Guide | Libra Technical Interpretation! Explain the move syntax, interpreter, and introducer

Sharing guests: Meng Yan, vice president of CSDN;

Zheng Di, CEO of Dots Institutional Investor Community;

dForce founder Yang Mindao;

Pan Chao, head of MakerDao China;

Ren Heyi, blockchain analyst of Guosheng Securities;

 

Q1: In your mind, what is the original intention of Facebook to issue coins? Why does it choose the way to send money? Do you venture?

Meng Yan: I wrote an article before that Facebook’s original intention to launch Libra was to find a new profit model to avoid the collapse of existing business models due to user data protection campaigns. I continue to maintain this view. But there are some additions.

Xiaozha is not a whim. He tried Facebook Credits a few years ago, that is, Facebook credits, a centralized point, not very successful, but accumulated experience. In addition, three years ago, there was news that Facebook intended to do so-called "flying coins." Of course this may be a fake message made by the Chinese. But I used to think that people like Zhaza who are super-powerful, who give themselves annual plans and complete them every year, must have studied digital currency long ago and fully realize their potential.

Today Mars Finance published an article introducing some interesting details of Libra development. For example, in January 2018, before the outbreak of the privacy door, Xiaozha included the study of encrypted digital currency in his annual plan. Think back to everyone, that is the time when Mr. Xu Xiaoping’s WeChat exposure and the fire at three o'clock. But Xiaozha is obviously very solid. By January 2019, the Libra team had a low morale and slow progress in the dark of the industry. Many people thought that Libra was not playing. At this time, it was Xiao Zha who personally came to the scene to cheer up and promised to make Libra, and to withstand the most difficult time. This shows that Xiaozhan himself is the initiator, leader and main promoter of this project, and is the person who knows the meaning of this matter the most.

Let's take a look at Libra's white paper and look at the words written by Xiaoza at the beginning of 2018. You find that this day's pride and monopoly giants still have an idealistic side.

Therefore, although this road is somewhat advancing, I feel that the reason why Xiaozha will choose it is definitely the actual pressure and interest considerations, but it cannot be said that there is no idealistic factor. By the way, Xiaoza issued an offer to Algorand in the second half of 2018, and the latter refused. The Algorand Dutch auction was priced for the past two days, and then went public, valued at $50 billion, ahead of EOS.

Just last week I met Professor Silvio, the founder of Algorand. In one of their activities, someone asked him at the scene why he refused Facebook acquisition. He said that the goal of the Algorand project is to promote financial democratization. He does not want to commit himself to the giants. Worried that your goals are damaged.

What I want to say is that the charm of the blockchain and digital currency industry is here, a group of pragmatic idealists who want to change the world together and create wealth by the way.

Zheng Di: After the emergence of Libra, we have contacted a large number of traditional institutions and investors. The obvious change is that the mainstream circle is not only for Libra, but also for the positive understanding of the blockchain. Many people In understanding these situations, many people have told me that they have had negative impressions and discrimination on the blockchain. They think it is a wrong opinion. They think it is a kind of prejudice. Now they are reflecting!

I just saw Tencent Institute published such an article, which is very good. They think that Libra is a very important experiment in history. Of course, it involves complicated communication related to supervision, but the total In this way, giving the world a chance to revisit this industry has a very huge educational effect on the market.

I especially agree with the one mentioned in the Tencent Institute article: In many cases, it is more important than what is done by someone. I think Libra proves such a sentence, what they have to do, many other people have thought about it a few years ago, but it does not have such a large user base of FB's ecology. FB This time, the Libra Ecological Association, if it is a hundred nodes, each node is 1% of the voting rights. If this progresses, there may be situations like parliamentary politics or the United Nations. This is also a smart place for Libra, introducing a large number of groups to share the pressure and coordination of supervision.

Yang Mindao: From the perspective of Libra's name, the original intention of Xiaozha is to establish a new financial infrastructure to achieve financial affirmation and help unbanked people. There is no shortage of money for him, and there is no need to prove his business success through this, so I don't think he is doing Libra for the new profit model. Of course, this inference is related to the structural design of the Libra Foundation. Libra's success is not strongly related to Facebook's success or monetization, which will be discussed later.

Libra is more like a social movement, similar to Universal Basic Income, a project with strong social claims and appeals. Doing such projects, like Bill Gates for charity or Elon Musk, is another dimension of business and politics. Libra's leader, crypto, and Wall Street's routines are familiar, and they are very aware of the advantages and realities of blockchain, so in terms of technology selection (dpos), consensus mechanism selection (bft), centralized decentralization, and compliance, Made a lot of compromises and trade off. The separation of the Libra Foundation and applications is a long-term and in-depth reflection. For example, at the compliance level, the Libra Foundation is responsible for the development and operation of the entire protocol. Lighter compliance is the first heavyweight application of the Libra network in Calibra. The white paper also understands that the future will be clear. The regulation is an issue that needs to be considered at the application level. This idea is also the idea of ​​most of the main chain.

They set up a dual token mechanism that fits well with the correct token model architecture that I have always considered a digital currency payment network.

Chao: MakerDAO developed the earliest and largest decentralized stable currency Dai in Ethereum. Dai is the cornerstone of DeFi.

Simply talking about Libra, FB's original intention is obviously to expand the business to the financial field relying on the existing user base and network effects. The reason for issuing Libra coins is because FB wants to do not only the hosting, payment and asset management, but the money market, specifically through the global money market. Libra is a debt. Most of the initial stage should be in the US dollar. Then the government bonds and short-term securities in the national capital market loan reserve are investment assets.

In this way, it is really ambitious but no problem.

Ren Heyi: What is the original intention of Facebook currency? Why did you choose the way to send money? Is the currency coming in? First of all, I am telling the truth. Our brokers have studied Facebook stocks, but asked Facebook why the specific reasons for the currency, the exact answer is definitely not known.

Interestingly, this question can be reversed to understand: What is the reason for Facebook not to issue coins?

The blockchain industry has been running from Bitcoin for more than a decade now. The price of Bitcoin has become a concern for all industries in the world, including the traditional financial industry and the Internet industry. Even if you may not recognize it in many respects, it is also a A very eye-catching existence – this new species has become a "significant learning."

Now let's take a look at the trend of US stocks. Everyone knows that the dividend of the Internet has gradually begun to fade, and the traditional Internet model has reached its peak. All the entrepreneurial models, think about it, in this case, Facebook, or other Internet giants, including the financial industry giants, at this time, what is his worthy layout? The early days were cloud computing, and later included big data, the Internet, and these business giants have done it. The pattern like the cloud computing market is already clear.

That question is coming: At the moment, what is exciting in the latest field, can let everyone see the future potential? There is no doubt that it is a blockchain, so Facebook has no reason not to do it and must do it. It is June 18th or June 19th. It is this year or next year. This is not a problem. When is it not a problem, it is a problem that the giants must do. In fact, both the Internet giants and financial institutions are actually doing layouts, but why do you think Facebook's white papers have a big influence?

In essence, financial institutions and supervision are integrated. Without supervision, there is no finance. Without finance, there is no supervision. Therefore, financial institutions are always cautious on this issue. The financial industry is not as extensive as it was in the early days of the birth of stock exchanges in the United States, and they are relatively lower in doing so. Their promotion is obviously earlier than Facebook, but Facebook's attitude and tone as the Internet giant, determined to do it, is obviously different. Due to the difference in the style of doing things between the Internet and the financial industry, the former has a greater degree of influence.

The development of the blockchain industry has been overwhelming. Everyone has already seen its prospects and opportunities. It has already reached this point, and other Internet giants are in the layout. If you don't stand up like Facebook and Xiaozha, I think it's a very strange thing. Then, if you want to innovate, you dare to dare to do it. There is no problem of advancing. If you become a king, you will lose it. That's it!

 

Q2: Some people think that Facebook currency is an extension of US dollar hegemony, which will be unfavorable to China, and we are still sitting still. What do you think?

Meng Yan: A lot of opinions are written in the article, not repeated. ( Meng Yan’s teacher once published an article: “Wanxiang tells Facebook digital currency: origin, meaning and consequences” )

This statement is more emotional. How big is China's big country, such a strong industrial chain, so many talents, how can we sit still? We have time and methods, and we can do a good job. We can turn crises into opportunities just like joining the WTO. But we really should pay attention to it. I talked about this issue in the last part of the article. Be confident and have a sense of urgency. China's engineers are 9 times more than the United States. This is the basis for our Internet take-off in the past and will be the basis for the development of our new digital economy. Some people need to adjust their thinking now.

Zheng Di: I have been telling a lot of things to many friends: China has the strengths of China and China is not very good at it. China is particularly good at catching up with hardware, so China can now become the top two countries in the world. But on the other hand, I don't think China is good at soft places, systems or underlying agreements. This is not very good at it. From this point of view, we feel very hard on the hard side, but the soft side is not so strong.

So I am relatively less optimistic about this issue. If Libra really succeeds, I think it's hard to build a new system that is completely contending with it. Of course, China is such a big market, and it is basically impossible to penetrate it. There is no problem with our company's self-contained system in the domestic market, because this market is already big enough, so I think it might become a parallel world in the future. Our domestic friendly countries with the Belt and Road are self-contained. Libra's success, unsuccessful, may form itself or merge with other things into another system, each playing. I think this is a very likely thing to happen.

Facebook I used to think that it might be to issue multiple stable coins, such as anchoring the US dollar in the US, anchoring the rupee in India, and anchoring the euro in the euro zone. This is relatively simple. First of all, it is not the first time to touch the cross-border issue. If you don't deal with cross-border issues, the supervision of countries will not rebound very strongly, so you can slowly achieve the goal in a very concealed way. This is also the way I think the Chinese group Wang Xing talks about adopting rural encircling the city and achieving one's own goal. It is a way of thinking for the Chinese!

But Libra didn't do it. It gives people a first impression that is a bit like a digital SDR. It puts a basket of money and assets in it, and it is destined that it is not really a stable currency. It is also better than the US dollar, the euro is good, the yen is good, and these exchange rates are ups and downs every day. In other words, it creates a new coin that distinguishes it from the dollar. So we can understand why US lawmakers want to engage in hearings. If Facebook is honest about a thing that directly anchors the dollar, I believe it is easy. Some of these stable currency usdt have already been sent out, and there is no opinion. . But to make an SDR, then the next thing is worth watching.

When I saw Libra behind a basket of currencies and assets, my first reaction was that their ambitions were quite large. Why did it call it so high at the beginning? Maybe he didn't want to do the things in the white paper in one step, but set a goal that was higher, and then slowly bargain. Perhaps the bottom line in his own mind is much lower than what is written in the white paper, but he feels that it is easier to reach his own bottom line goal after bargaining. This is a possibility. In addition, if you come up with a very low goal, then many companies may not be willing to join the Libra Association to help him as a node, there is no way to form a strong alliance.

But if in a new, ambitious vision, these nodes form a strong alliance and feel that this is indeed workable, Libra's ability will be very strong. Many people said that the hearing would not agree, I think the hearing is nothing special to be alarmed. If you look at the previous US Congress hearings on Bitcoin, you will be surprised that these members of Congress do not know anything about this thing. They are busy with other things every day. In their eyes, Bitcoin is a small world. It is a very small thing. They don't have time to understand this thing, so the Bitcoin hearing is basically talking about some basic things. problem.

American politics is a game of politics. There are a lot of black-box operations and transactions under the table. If you often read "House of Cards," I believe that this understanding should be profound. I was very impressed with the hearing last year. At that time, people from all walks of life made a big hit on Facebook. When the hearing came to the hearing, it seemed that it was held high, gently put down, and basically did not challenge him. ! It seems as if it did not happen. Facebook's ability to reach an agreement under the table is really strong. So this time, if the consortiums join in, the association has gotten up, there are so many big companies and companies in it, I believe he will do a lot of things.

For example, he can say: Most of the weight in our basket is still dominated by the US dollar. If you still want to raise interest rates and use interest to compensate for some of the cost of the node, then the assets you hold must be mainly US Treasury bonds. If Libra's structure is carried out in these countries where it is unable to stop it, it will further strengthen the US's global control. I don't know if you have noticed one thing: Phoenix News has a news that Facebook's Libra is banned for countries and regions on the US government sanctions list. If you form a habit, the US government is equivalent to another weapon that sanctions you, that is, you will not let Libra use it when you are highly dependent on Libra. At that time you will become very uncomfortable, this big stick will be very powerful!

Things like the Libra Association have been very clear to tell us that science has national boundaries! The global financial infrastructure was originally bordered! From this point of view, Facebook is connected to a number of US companies, and they are building the next generation of financial infrastructure. I think, like these reasons, if you tell the members of the United States clearly, there is really no reason to oppose it. If the United States does not specifically oppose this matter from the roots, I feel that there is no reason to do it. It is nothing more than a problem of the size of the scope. .

The ecology of Facebook is really too big, with 2.7 billion people. There has never been a format that covers so many countries in the world, such a large geographical area, so many people. I think that if you think about this matter in the depths, in the long run, it will still be very powerful. It is still very scary. I think there is some truth in the topic mentioned in this topic!

But what if we sit still and wait? I don't think so. Even if he can do it, in the end, we will enter a parallel world dominated by China and another US-led.

Yang Mindao : Libra's vision is of course not to work for the US government, but to achieve financial equality. To look at this issue with the dollar hegemony is too narrow. Just as most of the stable currencies are now USD stable currencies including dForce's USDx), this choice is based entirely on market demand and go to market considerations, not political considerations, and not to cater to which country's legal currency hegemony needs.

I think Libra should use the US dollar to stabilize the currency. This time I discussed this issue repeatedly with Pan Chao when I was communicating with the Maker group. But Libra instead uses a new basket of legal currency combinations. This will greatly increase the cost and friction of market education, and it is virtually unnecessary. This is similar to the past many years, and there have been people who have tried to replace English with an international language. In the end, it is in vain.

However, we say that most of the stable currency projects should be grateful that Libra did not use the US dollar stable currency. The biggest highlight of the blockchain as an unlicensed network is freedom of entry and exit, so we see innovations in the DeFi field in the past year, almost reviving the financial innovations of the past few centuries in the blockchain field.

So, in an unprecedented era, independent currencies (bitcoin, privacy (Zcash, Grin, Monroe), stable coins (USDT, DAI, USDx, Libra), the loan market (Compound, Dharma), the exchange ( IDEX, Uniswap, Kyber, and the forecasting market (Augur, Veil) are all implemented in decentralized networks, allowing the return of finance to the essence, dust to dust, bits to bits, and the nature of returning information.

In the past, these social experiments often required the protection of guns to be implemented. Today, they are launched spontaneously and orderly on a global scale. This should be a change that has not existed in the past thousand years. We hope that policy makers can clearly understand the changes in the situation. As for whether they can change and respond, the world is not very caric. Civilization and technological progress have always relied on the government's favor and understanding.

Cryptopunk's ultimate attitude towards everything is – we don't care!

Chao: My opinion will be different. First of all, Libra did not choose to anchor the US dollar. If it is not for the supervised smoke bomb, this is a big mistake, or the designer did not think clearly. In the white paper, FB is not anchoring the dollar, but a floating exchange rate (it is hard to say that it is anchoring a basket of currencies, there are several contradictions in the white paper). So it is not the agent of the dollar. From this perspective, there is no impact on China, Libra holders should pay attention to exchange rate risk. China has a huge trade surplus and the possibility of dollarization is small.

However, I agree with one point. This does not mean that China should reject distributed ledger technology, CBDC, license non-traditional banking financial institutions, and internationalization of RMB. DLT has room to play.

Ren Heyi: First, I don’t know if you have seen Tsinghua’s “Analysis of China’s National Interests” and analyze that a country is similar to a company that analyzes the market. They all have their own interests. Moreover, the interests are bounded, and there are grabs, which are equivalent to the various departments of a company, various business units or various business lines. From a global perspective, the international global market and the interests of countries are in a dynamic equilibrium. In the dynamic process, there may be very slow changes, or there may be very drastic changes. But no matter what, there are already more than 200 countries in the world. The United States is the United States, China is China, and India is India. It is a fait accompli. Whether in science and technology, comprehensive national strength or military, a balance of fait accompli has been reached.

To break this balance is a time and trend. For example, after the establishment of a new international system after World War II, the United States seized this leading opportunity to form the oil dollar and the international financial system with the dollar as the leading factor, so the dollar is now the most powerful currency in the world. Although the euro has risen, it is still stronger than the dollar. This is a fait accompli. Is Facebook's currency an extension of the US dollar hegemony, which is not good for China and other countries? Are we sitting still? I think the problem itself cannot be called a problem. Because the current US dollar is in a state of global hegemony, it is a fait accompli to a complete military, economic, financial, and administrative system to maintain it.

Now let's look at the issue of Facebook coining. What role did he play? From this perspective, I will give you an example. When I chat with my friends, I also said that the United States has a group of wolves. It has military, financial, economic, administrative, judicial, and so on. Many wolves to maintain his current status in the world, whether the United States or other countries, of course, want to expand their own advantages and expand their international interests, because they have their own national interests and interests, then other countries certainly have this idea, Everyone is a balanced state of competition in the international market. At this time, suddenly Facebook has come out and said, I want to help you to do dollar hegemony or the extension of global hegemony. Why?

The wolves are all raised, and you can seize the opportunity to strengthen a wolf. This is fine, but suddenly there is a thing that looks like a tiger. You can't figure out his intentions. It's not something in the American system. He said that I want to do this. So is the US using you or not? Does its rise mean killing a wolf or a few wolves? Obviously after you come up, maybe the Fed and other financial systems will have to be squeezed by you. Can the wolves promise? another one. Why can't Google do it because you can do it? What is the reason for Google’s silence now? Ma Huateng said that it is in place: technology itself is not a problem, it depends on regulation. The regulation of illocutionary permission has long been high-profile.

So, Libra has three levels of problems to help achieve the dollar hegemony extension:

First of all, you must first kill the other wolves in the United States, you have to replace them. This is like saying that you are in the company, that you want to open up a new line of business, and you squeeze other lines of business, so that the company's limited resources will tilt toward you. Now Facebook has many competitors from the financial and Internet industries in the country. What Facebook does will move their cakes and interests. This is a big contradiction.

Second is the matter of domestic regulation. What Facebook will ultimately do is financial infrastructure, which will inevitably be subject to great regulatory pressure first, and it will be a long-term game process that cannot be achieved overnight. So everyone should not talk about the dollar hegemony to extend this kind of thing, I think it is too far, this is not with Libra.

In addition, if it is carrying out dollar hegemony, what other countries are waiting for? In the current global system, many countries have the ability to restrict the entry of information services, and it is more capable of not allowing the so-called free currency Libra to circulate, so why talk about the extension of the dollar hegemony?

Still, the old and new, the need for timing and trends.

Q3: We can find that there are no banks in the Libra project association, and rare old Wall Street giants. Can this be understood as a revolution initiated by Silicon Valley to Wall Street?

Meng Yan: Wall Street's own hugs the blockchain is not much smaller than Facebook, but he has less than 2.7 billion C-users, so all they do is to B, and the influence is not as big as Facebook.

At this stage, banks should be somewhat contradictory. It is necessary to observe for a while before deciding. But in the long run, the two sides will definitely join hands. Of course, the result is a change for both sides. This form of bank is the result of historical choices. It has a lot of rationality in itself. It is only now that the centralized black box operates and has accumulated some problems. It is not that with a new technology, the bank is outdated. That set of risk management, any financial organization, regardless of centralization and decentralization, can not be avoided.

Zheng Di: I think the bank has always been unfriendly to the crypto industry. We see that the United States also has a bank dedicated to the crypto industry, Silvergate, which is going to IPO. They have 66 crypto customers, and even coinbase is its customer. As you can imagine, other banks are actually not very happy to serve this industry. In fact, this is a bit like the cannabis industry, because the federal level has not been particularly clear. (Either entertainment marijuana or crypto, basically some states are supporting, there is no clear statement at the federal level, so banks are not willing to serve at this stage, so that the Democratic Party has also implemented a cannabis banking service bill, requiring banks to provide service.)

The US management system is very interesting. The federal and state management systems can be vague or even illegal at the federal level, but legal in several states. Often things that the federal community is not willing to push forward can be done legally in some states.

In fact, many banks have joined the JPMcoin alliance (how much is really to be tested), and the alliance with these companies on the west coast of FB is a bit of a courtesy. I have always felt that in the next 5-10 years, there may be a trend in the United States for Silicon Valley and Wall Street to compete for financial power. Not long ago, Silicon Valley specialized in a stock exchange and set out the listing rules that they considered reasonable.

There was news before, saying that Zhazah is a teacher and wants to go to politics. Silicon Valley used to be the technology center of the United States, and may later become a dual center of technology finance. It is unrealistic that such a big change does not involve the seizure of power, so it is not surprising that Silicon Valley has its own people to choose the president.

My general feeling is that the fierce competition between Silicon Valley and Wall Street has begun. The above is my basic opinion.

Chao: I think this question is very good. At the beginning, everyone was very concerned about the presence of these luxury institutions behind Facebook, but the question we should ask is not to see which institutions have joined, but to see which institutions have not joined. We didn't see traditional banks, nor did we see Wall Street financial institutions, even Amazon, Google, and they didn't join in. What is the reason for not joining in? It can be said that traditional institutions are more conservative. On the other hand, I think that the big reason is that for traditional banks, they already have some very convenient non-bank institutions that have no way to obtain some monetary conditions.

So I think these institutions don't really need to join. They already have the Fed's account and already have the existing clearing infrastructure. So I didn't see this as a challenge or revolution for Silicon Valley on Wall Street. Instead of the support of these banks, it is something that deserves our deep thought.

In addition, I want to throw a question: Even if we see organizations like VISA and Mastercard join, but these institutions join in, really represent their willingness to support the Facebook project? In fact, still have to ask a question mark. The membership fee is only 10 million US dollars. In fact, it is not a lot. For these giants, they have joined in now and have not caused any losses. In fact, it is not a very bad thing. But in the long run, can this alliance continue? This is one thing worth thinking about.

Yang Mindao: From what we know now, Facebook is looking for banking giants like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan. As for why these banks are not paying attention, I think they all have their own considerations. Banks have the past experience of the R3 alliance and the chain, so they are more cautious. And the bank knows that Libra is a Trojan horse war, and it is perfectly logical that they don't join at this time.

Libra is the core market for the bank, and they will be very concerned. The Libra Alliance now has fewer nodes. I believe that there will be a large number of financial institutions and banks accessing. As far as I know, banks are now considering participating nodes. Wall Street's sensitivity to money will be much higher than the technology circle or the digital currency circle, and of course they will intervene at the right time. Now, if there is no upside for them, they will definitely not cut the customer's settlement and clearing business to Libra, and will not settle in the interbank market.

Libra's ultimate vision is to get rid of most of the bank's intermediary business, to build a network that is completely independent of the bank's clearing and settlement system, or that does not depend on the current financial infrastructure (for example, to replace SWIFT), for banking and finance. The impact is huge, but financial companies will not sit still. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are all smart people. There is actually no difference in the matter of digital currency, but the strategy is different. Wall Street is lazy. When the revolution is successful, cut off the dice and buy and buy.

Ren Heyi: In the end, I added my point: Silicon Valley is home to many companies, and Wall Street is also home to many companies. The battle for interests between Silicon Valley companies and the struggle for interests between Wall Street companies are all things you can do. But Wall Street and Silicon Valley, one is doing business, and the other is doing finance. It is a mutual relationship. The struggle between them is not as fierce as their peers. It is impossible for you to expect Silicon Valley's peers to join forces to hit Wall Street! Seeing the problem is based on facts, logic and common sense.

I don't know the specific reasons for not having a bank in Libra's initial node, but in reverse, the reason why the bank does not participate is very good. At present, the formation of the global banking system (the banking system refers to the financial system) is inseparable from regulation. Banks and regulation are mutually exclusive, and today's banks have created today's regulation. On the other hand, it is also true. This is the same principle. Under the pressure of supervision, banks do not go hand in hand with Internet companies to do this. I think the reason is very simple, because unlike the style of Internet companies, banks must be lower-key, more pragmatic, and pay attention to supervision, but banks are not doing it, banks do It may not be worse than they have done. At present, many banks may be more advanced in the blockchain, but their methods are more euphemistic.

You can think about one question: Facebook said that Libra's three characteristics are different, one of which is different from other blockchains, that is, it has a shield of reserve assets (money or government bonds, etc.). Think about it, where is the shield? Its shield is in the traditional banking-centric financial system. Your shield is in the bank, but it is proposed to kill the traditional banking system based on this shield. This is a bit like standing on the shoulders of giants and saying that the giant is not high. This is what we have been emphasizing. Libra, from its own point of view, the first core issue is how to land. We must first look at what is going on at the bottom, and the underlying things are in the bank. The traditional financial deficiencies of the "crime" in the white paper, this shield has, the advantages that banks do not have Libra currently do not see.

Therefore, the necessity of bank participation is not so big. Everyone knows the issuance and circulation of money. In the final analysis, it is a matter of supervision. The statutory currency is the foundation of a country. It is prescribed by the government and is stipulated by the Constitution. In this case, it is necessary to issue a new currency and kill the old currency. It’s not that I use the iPhone to kill the airliner. It’s not a one-size thing. The first attribute of the blockchain is finance. Finance is different from the Internet. In the past, in the information Internet era, in order to make information spread faster, we used Various technological innovations and product innovations can rise from the edge to kill the giants in the traditional field. This is no problem. But in the financial industry, I don't think there is such a business environment.

And in the past many years, from the rise of the US financial industry for 200 years, the financial industry has nothing to innovate, banks are still doing those things, but the rules of supervision have changed, everyone’s play has changed, and securities companies are not doing things like they used to You can do it, the buildings on Wall Street are very tall, but the essence of doing things is still like that. The financial industry is the foundation of a country's economy and an important aspect of a country's economy. It is not that a technological innovation can change its essence. Facebook's 2.7 billion users may not be an advantage at this level. Don't forget that Facebook's previous payment has failed, indicating that the old so-called advantage is not necessarily an advantage in the future of innovation. The stickiness of these users in Facebook depends entirely on the government and depends on the government's regulatory and regulatory rules. Libra's global circulation and use is by no means as simple as the platform used by mobile apps. There are still many problems and links from node landing to circulation. It doesn't matter whether you use Alipay or WeChat. What matters is that the bank's legal currency account is used for circulation.

User stickiness is not so important to the financial industry. I often use Facebook and often use WeChat. It doesn't mean I can use the coins they send. Who do you dare to buy? It’s a matter of law, the legal thing of the regulatory layer, and the final question of this matter has returned to whether it can let the regulatory layer or the entire national system reshape a new financial system to change the current A financial ecological issue. I think Facebook only provides a means here. And is Silicon Valley a revolution in Wall Street development? I don't think so. If you can't do another place, you will have a new company, and both sides will be killed. I think it is possible.

In a word, see how the final regulation can reshape the new rules and systems of finance. As Ma Huateng said, the focus is on regulation. To put it bluntly, it depends on how the rule makers look at this matter. A stick to kill, or a long-term game change rules? I think this is the key. On the circulation and distribution of money, including financial business innovation, Internet companies do not see any advantage. Innovation often rises to marginal companies or organizations. This is an obvious truth.

Today's financial industry companies have also been innovated in the past. We should not underestimate their strength in this respect. It is just that the market in which everyone is located is different. Everyone feels that the Internet company is very capable and innovative. It is Because you are doing Internet business, people are doing financial business. The regulatory policies that people face are different. The Internet's regulatory policies are often loose, which is different from the financial industry. The current speed of development and innovation in the blockchain has made it possible for everyone to see that Internet companies can't keep up with the rhythm. It is also the reason why the policy and market environment are different. If you let Internet companies really do financial business and dance with them, then everyone will have a new perspective on them.

Author: Carbon value chain newsroom

Source: Carbon chain value

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!