
The Ties That Bind Facebook's Libra - imartin2k
https://www.wired.com/story/ties-bind-facebooks-libra/
======
wallacoloo
“Hey, look at how many people have connections with or have collaborated with
other people in this same industry even though they’re at different companies
now.” Um, ok. That’s kind of how the world works.

But I did find one quote interesting:

> The Senate is a deliberative body with 100 members, each of whom has a
> single, equal vote,” she adds. “But I’ve seen quite clearly that an equal
> vote is not the same as an equal say. So I have real concerns about who will
> get to ask the questions, who will get to set the agenda.”

Because there is a lot more to governance than just casting votes. But the
article didn’t go into any detail about what membership in Libra actually
entails (maybe that’s already been covered?)

~~~
jfengel
Indeed: the actual votes are among the least important parts of it. It's not
whether you're voting up or down on something, but precisely what that
something says. The actual vote is generally a foregone conclusion. The
writing is, like any other collaborative document, a vast exercise in managing
people's differing priorities, both on this issue and in other outside issues.

------
xlc0212
I don’t really care what Libra is on launch. What I really care about is the
potential of the technologies behind Libra and what Libra can become.

The most decentralized and trussfree system right now is probably Bitcoin,
which I wouldn’t say it is decentralized on day 1. But it is the fundamental
of what we have today (which I admit it isn’t that much), and what we can
achieve tomorrow. It is the potential excites me.

People doesn’t need to trust FB, or any other companies relates to FB. But you
can audit the open sourced code and evaluate how much do you want to trust the
code. This is simply not possible with traditional technologies. So I will say
it is a net improvement. As long as it is not a regression, I want to see it
happen.

~~~
benj111
"People doesn’t need to trust FB"

They have an aspiration to decentralise it at some unspecified time in the
future. So maybe you don't need to trust them then, (maybe we still will, the
devil us in the detail). Up until that point, we do need to trust them.

~~~
hugi
I feel Facebook is a corporation with obvious bad motivations (trying to avoid
the loaded word "evil" here) and should not be trusted with anything at all,
they've repeatedly shown that "trust" means nothing to them.

The thought and implications of FB having any type of control over the
financial system, the very foundation of our current society, are absolutely
horrifying to me.

------
AlEinstein
I like to hate on Facebook as much as anyone but there's a fairly obvious
explanation for this situation: of the 100 or so organisations that initially
expressed interest, the 27 organisations that have so far formally joined are
more aligned with Facebook. It's an easier decision for them so they acted
more quickly.

With PayPal pulling out and governments expressing concern, it will come down
to what well known financial institutions like Visa and Mastercard decide to
do.

If they still sign on, I'd hope the balance will be much better by the time
they hit the target of 100 founding members. Time will tell.

It'll be interesting to see how far Facebook can push this if other
organisations bail out.

That said, I don't for a moment believe that Libra exists for the greater
good.

~~~
vinniejames
Not one of the 27 has formally joined. All have merely expressed interest, via
letters of intent

------
berbec
This would be like a bunch of bean counters working at an accounting firm
trying to be part of the hippie movement and put on their own Woodstock.
"independent", "anti-establishment" my ass.

~~~
mr_toad
It doesn’t need to be anti-establishment, or some sort of decentralised
nirvana. It just needs to be better than the awful, awful, awful state of
international money transfers.

