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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.