So, as many predicted, looks like #Libra is all but DOA unless @davidmarcus and FB pull off a minor miracle.
I’m going to say something that will probably get me shunned by some - I think this should upset a lot of people. Not because the result isn’t great for crypto (it is)...
I’m going to say something that will probably get me shunned by some - I think this should upset a lot of people. Not because the result isn’t great for crypto (it is)...
but because the manner in which governments achieved this. I’ve been struggling to articulate just why I got this sinking feeling seeing this play out, but weirdly, seeing other “shadow” gov action curtailing innovation globally more recently has helped crystallize things for me.
That is, rather than using the formal mechanisms of democratic authority instilled in them, many have instead refused to articulate legal grounds (of which, I think there are many, like antitrust) to stop this, and have instead pulled from the mafioso playbook.
We don’t need to be sympathetic for Visa, MC and certainly not FB, but this is just the flip side of the “shadow legislation” in many ways that frustrates so many people inside and outside of crypto. Here, the only difference is, everyone hates FB.
But, for many govs to essentially say, “it would be a shame if Visa and Stripe found themselves under our boot for challenging our monopoly on money” and for us to cheer is a huge mistake. The tenets that underpin democracy require an even handed application of the law.
Moving forward, do you think this playbook won’t be rolled out for less prominent cryptos? That’s naive and foolish. A truly decentralized protocol design may still defeat those efforts, but cheering on nebulous rulemaking by our elected officials is insane.
What principles have been articulated right now that have convinced some of the worlds largest entities that they can’t pursue something loathe some albeit seemingly legal? If govs want to stop this, pass laws, establish precedent. We have antitrust for a reason.
The EOS decision was the opposite result, but is steeped in the same type of BS “we won’t say what’s wrong but it’s wrong” logic that we see here. Just as in that instance, I think we should be wary of how that can be used against any citizen (speaking beyond crypto).
Did the vindicative human in me secretly let out an inner whoop and arrogantly blast texts to friends who swore they would get this through a few minutes ago? Of course! And that’s exactly why this should worry us.
Democracies are meant to stymie arbitrary and capricious treatment, not encourage it.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. But, ironically, now, more than ever, I turn to @danheld’s points about Satoshi’s wisdom in protocol design and removing himself as a point of failure.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. But, ironically, now, more than ever, I turn to @danheld’s points about Satoshi’s wisdom in protocol design and removing himself as a point of failure.
May we hope he never re-emerges, because if so, I imagine some other gov actor would find it “a shame if his family were to just...have an accident unless he happened to move his coins to create systemic shock.” Paranoid? Yes. But if it can happen to FB, it can happen to you.
Now decimate me.
