Facebook’s currency is not a successor of Bitcoin, it’s an inferior reincarnation of a failed predecessor.
I personally think that Facebook's cryptocurrency will fail because today's climate is anything but trusting, but just because an idea failed in 1983 doesn't mean it'd fail today. There's also a strong possibility of it succeeding in the developing world and failing in the developed world.
Then it copied/pivoted to twitter’s timeline. And finally took off with a proper mobile app, and social apis for gaming. All while copying/buying - stories from Snapchat/Instagram, Whatsapp/messenger, live/ig to/twitch
It could work pretty well in the developed world, too, if transactions are instant and cheaper than credit cards or PayPal.
But whether it succeeds or fails as a payment system has nothing to do with any blockchain tech, or whether they call it a cryptocurrency.
This is not a competitor to Bitcoin, because it cannot be what Bitcoin is -- open, borderless, neutral, censorship-resistant, and public.
Maybe it will be better at buying coffee than Bitcoin. I couldn't care less, because buying coffee isn't the purpose of Bitcoin.
I can't use Venmo. Even if I would like to, I simply can't.
I can have a Libra wallet though and even if Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Stripe decide that my market isn't big enough to sell me some Libra directly, I can still have that wallet and find others means to fill it.
That fit both the open and borderless nature of it.
I'm not saying it will be cheap, and surely filling it would require an intermediary (like in every single others cases), but at least that intermediary can be anyone that have a Libra wallet. That person could simply be someone that does wire transfer to someone that can purchase Libra, don't care, but it's now possible.
Sure having them behind make it not possible to be "neutral, censorship-resistant, and public", but at the end of the day, does it matters to me that just want to pay? Nope. Would it matter to me if I want to give money to Wikileak, sure most probably, but that's not why I want it. Like you said, that's not its purpose.
In the context of Facebook being pegged to a basket of international currencies, the peg to each will need to be reevaluated frequently as the currencies fluctuate and arbitrage opportunities increasingly cost the peg-guarantor money to uphold the peg. These fluctuation can be cancelled by derivative contracts e.g. currency swaps, but those cost premiums to maintain and periods of volatility can get very expensive.
Assuming that Facebook is the sole issuer and redeemer of the coin, this is a nonissue. By backing the issued coin 1:1 with reserves according to the composition of the basket, Facebook can redeem any coins at face value. Hong Kong, for example, maintains a currency pegged to USD backed entirely with USD holdings.
As an aside, your source, armstrongeconomics.com, may not have the best credibility:
"In 1999, Japanese fraud investigators accused Armstrong of collecting money from Japanese investors, improperly commingling these funds with funds from other investors, and using the fresh money to cover losses he had incurred while trading. United States prosecutors called it a three-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme... Armstrong admitted to deceiving corporate investors and improperly commingling client funds—actions that according to prosecutors resulted in commodities losses of more than seven hundred million dollars—and was sentenced to five years in prison."
I wish Libra was building on an Ethereum scaling technology, like Plasma, but most likely it's a new standalone proof-of-authority blockchain where the validators are the hundred companies investing $10M each.
In terms of the sliding scale between centralized and decentralized, Ethereum v1 and Bitcoin are considered to be "pretty much impossible to change history"; Ethereum v2 is expected to be "extremely impossible to change history"; but Libra would require only that the hundred companies agree to a process by which history can be changed: Libra will be very centralized in practice and while it might and I hope help take crypto mainstream, Libra is not a substitute for Ethereum's secure base layer.
In Bitcoin, as long as you pay the fee, some miner will probably mine your transaction, based on purely economic incentive. Miners that refuse to serve certain customers based on "tainted" coins or illegal activity simply forego that revenue to miners who don't.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and conjecture that Facebook at the 100 entrenched industry players who are part of this new system will probably not consider censorship-resistance as a high-priority goal for the system. They will probably have a law-enforcement login portal that calls up Facebook's data profile of participants in a suspect transaction. There will probably be blacklists and fund freezes. There will probably be State Department liaisons to help comply with sanctions.
Farther afield you have stuff like Chia's proof of empty disk space or of course PoS.
Monero is currently pushing back with randomx which performs well on cpu's and not much else: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX
So far, FB's coin looks very interesting.
>Facebook’s currency is not a successor of Bitcoin
Yeah the title is just low-quality clickbait; it's got nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Seriously, though... the whitepaper isn't out yet so we don't really know how this is supposed to work. It'm sure it will use some type of permissioned blockchain for convenience/ensure trust between all the partners and dissolve responsibility for all decisions the consortium takes.
This coin might look interesting, but for all of the wrong reasons.