• fishy@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      I had an acquaintance ask me about my opinion on crypto a few years ago and I explained it only has the perceived value and is highly volatile as a result, and that all but a few coins were basically rug pulls waiting to happen. He was satisfied with that and moved on. About a year later crypto had roughly doubled in value and he gave me shit about bad advice (it was an opinion not investment advice) and proceeded to move $10k into some coin I’d never heard of. About a month later a mutual friend said the other guy had lost like $8k of his $10k investment. Next time I saw the acquaintance there was no mention of crypto.

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yeah, it’s like those people who fall for ads where people get rich going to the casino.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          LOL they love to parade around the 1/10,000 winners and make them spokespeople for the casino for a week.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        (it was an opinion not investment advice)

        If you did give them advice, would it be different?

        some coin I’d never heard of

        The problem is this person was looking at the market as a whole and then investing in some niche coin. At this point any coin that’s not well-established is mostly likely pure grift.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        i notice that is usually conservatives that buys into the scam, and the ones that peddle it too.

      • utopiah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        19 days ago

        I agree and in fact I feel the same with AI.

        Fundamental cryptocurrency is fascinating. It is mathematically sound, just like cryptography in general (computational complexity, one way functions, etc) and it had the theoretical potential to change existing political and economical structures. Unfortunately (arguably) the very foundation it is based on, namely mining for greed, brought a different community who inexorably modified not the technology itself but its usages. What was initially a potential infrastructure for exchange of value became a way to speculate, buy and sell goods and services banned, ransomware, scam payments, etc).

        AI also is fascinating as a research fields. It asks deep question with complex answers. Research for centuries about it lead to not just interesting philosophical questions, like what it’s like to be think, to be human, and mathematics used in all walks of life, like in logistics for your parcel to get delivered this morning. Yet… gradually the field, or at least its commercialization, got captured by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, regulators, who main interest was greed. This in turn changed what was until then open to something closed, something small to something required gigantic infrastructure capturing resources hitherto used for farming, polluting due to lack of proper permit for temporary electricity sources, etc. The pinnacle right now being regulation to ban regulation on AI in the US.

        So… yes, technology itself can be fascinating, useful, even important and yet how we collectively, as a society, decide to use it remains what matters, the actual impact of an idea rather than its idealization.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          The purpose of a system is what it does. Crypto is used to bypass regulations, generally for illegal or immoral things. Its also been used as a ponzi scheme over and over, I guess we call them rug pulls now but its the same bullshit.

          Crypto is for gamblers or drug addicts, generally. Sometimes they are both. Sort of reminds me of the mortgage crisis in 2008 with people saying it wasnt the system just people abusing it. The system was built and modified to enable abuse.

          • utopiah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            The purpose of a system is what it does.

            Right, reminds me of the hacker mindset or more recently the workshop I did on “Future wheel foresight” with Karin Hannes. One can try their best to predict how an invention might be used but in practice it goes beyond what its inventors want it to be, it is truly about how what “it” does through actual usage.

          • ToadOfHypnosis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            Regulations aren’t perfect, but the banking industry has gotten vastly more full of scams since congress repealed Glass Steagall. Regulations offer a structure to punish fraud and scamming. We need clear defined rules to at least attempt to control markets from their worst possible outcomes.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              Frankly movement is all that matters. Too deregulated looks like cryptocurrencies, too regulated looks like PSTN which every phreaker could own, because it relied upon laws for its defense, not technical robustness.

              There’s no system that remains working when just kept standing, all that matters is that we can quickly rebuild any part of it. Which is why modern legal systems and modern Web suck so much, they’ve lost that trait.

      • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 days ago

        Idk. I’ve been reading about Bitcoin since the very beginning and while I don’t think it’s necessarily a “scam” the whole project was based on a flawed hyper-libertarian economic theory that inflationary currency is inherently evil and that the ideal currency has a fixed quantity, requires effort to produce, and becomes rarer over time. From that standpoint, I feel like Bitcoin has failed in its original mission. You simply cannot use it as a day to day currency and everyone is just using it to gamble essentially. I do agree that if crypto had been an outright scam from the beginning, Satoshi would have rugpulled already, though.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        19 days ago

        In what way is Bitcoin not fundamentally a scam? There are multiple interpretations of “Bitcoin is a scam” you can take, and honestly with most of them I think it’s been true the whole time.

          • miridius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Decentralised currencies are fundamentally too expensive to operate, while providing dangerously little safety and a far worse user experience than fiat.

            The scam part is the idea that any crypto coin is an asset with inherent value, when in fact the price is created entirely by new investment, in other words it’s just a ponzi scheme

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            I think you may have misunderstood. I’m saying people call it a scam for a variety of reasons, so when someone says it isn’t a scam, I’m asking which way of calling it a scam are they saying it’s not a scam in relation to.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              I’m the way that none of those other ways are fundamental to it’s intended use by it’s creator as an actual currency.

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          It would be better to state how it is a scam

          Apart from that, well no big company or country profits from it. You’re not paying someone that’s actively trying to fuck you over. You’re not paying to fund a capitalistic villain that wants all the world money. You’re paying for an, at least the original goal was, uncensurable means of payment that’s decentralized and doesn’t rely on a government or a company.

          A pseudonymous and trustless way of paying people. Believe in the maths, not a regulated entity that might seize your money at any time.

          It’s the cypherpunk’s wet dream and I view it as such.

          Most people only view it as investment and “ponzi scheme” because they don’t care about this. They don’t care about not giving too much power to a few individuals and don’t hate banks.

          Any country can just print money and make what you have worthless, and it’s often done in poor countries as a way to wipe debts or similar bs. Crypto can shield them against that, which is probably the reason why it’s more used in those kind of countries (or in countries with oppressive governments)

          Bitcoin is one of the cleanest cryptos. It’s old, doesn’t work that well, but it’s not owned by anyone and it has a strong identity

          For anyone saying it’s only perceived value and doesn’t rely on anything, well it’s a bit like any market. How does it really differ from stocks for example? And crypto actually relies on the way of creating coins: mining, minting… which is known. If you don’t agree with it, don’t use it. The limited number of coins plays an important role in the price.

          • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            For example, I mainly hold crypto that I’ll be using for payments, or those I deem technologically interesting.

            I’ve already made many crypto payments, know how they pretty much work, and prefer using them than paying by card, because fuck the banking system and those greedy visa/mastercard that takes huge cuts from payments. Also, anonymity benefit: don’t always want my name to be known, for example when donating to an individual or particular cause

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 days ago

              I do hope you’re being real careful with your opsec if anonymity is important to you. Generally speaking, more people will know who paid who with crypto compared to bank transfers. Chains like Monero are an exception of course and yes, there are ways to anonymize other wallets too, but it requires a great deal of care, more than I personally trust myself.

              You’ve got a valid point for the card payments where there are huge fees the merchant has to pay (nearly 2% for many I think), but bank transfers are infinitely cheaper (free) and instant, compared to paying gas fees and waiting. Obviously this is not true for all banking systems yet, but it’s getting there.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 days ago

                I think they didnt say part of their reasoning. Crypto is useful to buy things that are either illegal or not socially acceptable/available in your local area.

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  Absolutely - if you’re good about your opsec. If you’re not, it’s almost worse than a bank transaction and for sure worse than cash.

            • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              They extra costs of creditcards is why I use a modern bankcard, but the US is really behind on that so for some things I need to use my CC

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that the proof of work aspect encourages miners to keep adding more hash rate to the network so long as it is profitable to do so and not whether the network actually needs it. It takes crazy amounts of energy for simple transactions.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that proof of stake algorithms (like Ether) is just a plot for the rich to get richer and favor early adopters who have more coins.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” in that it’s controlled by technology and not laws and can’t be fixed. Someone stealing it is more likely to get away with it because it’s not like a company can just revert fraud.

            Someone can say crypto “is a scam” because it doesn’t hold value. Stocks do hold value because you own a portion of that company and if they don’t reinvest their profits you get dividends. Money does hold value because even in the absence of a gold standard we’ve been using it long enough that it’s so ingrained in everything and everyone agrees it has value. Money has value in that the massive amount of financial regulations surrounding it creates a more stable value. Not everyone agrees crypto has value. Crypto is hardly regulated. Crypto wildly fluctuates in price.

            Someone could say crypto “is a scam” because it is often used in scams and makes it easier for scammers to be anonymous and lock down funds they steal.

            These are all the ways I could think of off the top of my head. I don’t because agree with all of them, and some I think are more valid arguments than others. The last one being the weakest since it feels odd to say scam instead of a trap or something.

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          It’s not a scam. It’s also not immune from valid criticism, but people who call it a scam don’t understand it well enough to make those criticisms.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      It’s not, but there are plenty of crypto scams. It’s not an investment and it’s also not a particularly good store of value, but it is decent for P2P transactions, with some coins also providing privacy.

      If that’s not your use case, don’t buy cryptocurrencues. Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.

        It’s not going to happen. You can’t price things when the value of the currency changes every 10 minutes.

        • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Never gonna happen is a bit of a stretch. It used to be a thing. Steam accepted bitcoin. They stopped accepting it due to volatility and high transaction fees at the time. You still price things in your local currency but convert at checkout. There are “plug and play” payment processors who can handle it now… Spar in Switzerland accepts it.

          But imo, its not something regular people should be using anyway.

            • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              19 days ago

              I thought your point was it was never happening? I provided examples where it did happen in the past and where its happening now. Volatility of the price vs USD is not the biggest issue if the payment processor gives the vendor USD back after the transaction. If the vendor believes in crypto, they can decide to keep it as well. Had Valve chosen to hold their crypto earnings in 2016 for a few years, they’d have seen even larger profits. But thats beside the point. I personally believe they canned it more because of transaction fees. At the time, bitcoin network was oversaturated due to an explosion of popularity which reduced it to unusable levels for everyday transactions.

              You should be focusing on why other vendors are still supporting crypto and asking yourself why.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                19 days ago

                Fees are predictable. Volatility is not. If you can’t make sure the money you are paid retains its value then the price you are selling something for is also volatile rather than inert.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            I don’t know what you’re saying. If I charge a particular amount for a loaf of bread and then the cryptocurrency value drops halfway through the day then that person still has the bread but I now don’t have the money.

            The whole point of currency is to get away from the fluctuating value of exchange that everyone had to deal with when we used to buy things with gold and semi-precious stones.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              Vendors can immediately sell upon receipt. And prices rarely change that much in a day, usually it’s a few percent at most (within the credit card fee range), especially for the currencies targeted at actually being currencies instead of scams.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          That happens to every currency, BTC is more volatile than many, but things can be priced.

          Also until twiddling is made illegal, prices can be set by some other currency or some function, and be calculated in BTC from that, and displayed on electronic price tags for example.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        I like GNU Taler, and I would like there to exist not just such a payment system, but also an electronic currency system without blockchains (global synchronization is a pain), unfortunately currencies are not like most applications.

        I also wrote two smartass paragraphs completely wrong after this, and now thinking about it - Taler is as good a solution as possible. It’s basically what can be done. You can’t decentralize an issuer or a bank, except for the BTC way. If you can, then you can’t plug it in seamlessly , you need some synchronization (would be a shame if a failed transaction made it into Taler as passed).

        If I understand that correctly.

        Gosh. It’s year 2025, I’ve achieved nothing. I was blabbering on these subjects in year 2011! I’ll be 29 in less than a month. But so cool that someone is making the humanity better.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Taler is cool, but it solves a completely different set of problems vs cryptocurrencies, and is ripe for being replaced with alternatives, undermining its primary purpose.

          Here are a few of the problems being solved here:

          • transaction fees
          • privacy
          • decentralization
          • independence from fiat

          Taker largely attacks the first two, and cryptocurrencies largely attack the second two, and I’m mostly interested in the middle two. However, since Taler doesn’t do either of the last two, it’s subject to either being ignored (i.e. if no banks are willing to support it) or directly competed against with something that sacrifices one of the first two, and customers won’t get the option of Taler.

          I think Taler makes a ton of sense for something with its own currency, such as microtransactions or a browser extension for rewarding creators (say, in lieu of displaying ads). I don’t see benefits for banks who make a ton from credit cards. There are some cryptocurrencies that hit the last three (e.g. Monero), so that’s what I’m excited to see take off.

    • flightyhobler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Same way fiat is.

      Édit: damn, and I thought bitcoiners were obnoxious You guys take the cake with so much copium.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        They’re the same with AI. Had these people been interested years ago, they would be sitting pretty. But they kept telling everyone it’s garbage. Now it’s just sunk costs for them

        • flightyhobler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          I’m sure that if they found a set of keys for a Bitcoin wallet, they would just throw it away.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            I certainly wouldn’t keep anything in cryptocurrency. I would transfer it to something stable.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              I mean if I found a wallet with a million euros worth of bitcoin, I’d sell half and keep half. If it rises significantly, sell half of the remainder. And so on.

              If I found a wallet with like 5k worth of BTC on it though? Just sell it all right away, it’ll do more for me now than say 10k in 5 years which is an insane long term return tbf.

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    Why would they in the first place? It would be like a newspaper buying gold. If investors want to buy bitcoin they can just do that.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      If i understood it correctly, meta wants to slap its own crypto-currency on everything.

    • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      Businesses are following the lead of Microstrategy with keeping BTC on the treasury books to increase profits and hedge against inflation.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        But now they’re essentially just a bitcoin proxy, they even changed the logo to have a bitcoin on it.

        Now that there’s lots of ETFs and stuff, why buy Microstrategy and not just bitcoin?

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          Their value-add is that they financialize their bitcoin holdings to grow their bitcoin-backed shares faster than the bitcoin itself. Higher risk than just holding bitcoin or ETFs that just hold bitcoin, but something like 30-40% better returns.

          In good times. We’re yet to see how they do in a bitcoin winter.

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    They also tried to create their own shitcoin back in the day: https://www.ft.com/content/a88fb591-72d5-4b6b-bb5d-223adfb893f3

    ok, so the link was working the first time, but now it has a paywall…I’ll post the thing below:

    spoiler

    Facebook Libra: the inside story of how the company’s cryptocurrency dream died on linkedin (opens in a new window) current progress 13% Hannah Murphy and Kiran Stacey PublishedMar 10 2022 UpdatedMar 10 2022, 08:37 68 Stay informed with free updates Simply sign up to the Cryptocurrencies myFT Digest – delivered directly to your inbox. On June 24 2021, Jay Powell and Janet Yellen sat down for their weekly breakfast amid the ­austere surroundings of the US Treasury building on 1,500 Pennsylvania Avenue. There was only one major question on the agenda: should they give the green light for a global cryptocurrency designed by Facebook? The chair of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury secretary were both DC veterans; Powell had replaced Yellen at the top of the Fed. But neither had had to make such an unusual decision. An alliance of tech companies led by Facebook proposed to launch a product it hoped would profoundly change the world. Rather than adhering to the social media giant’s one-time mantra “move fast and break things”, executives had come to Washington to ask permission first. Powell laid out his position with his customary precision. As Fed chair, he told Yellen, he was willing to give the go-ahead for Facebook and its partners to trial Diem, as the digital currency backed by the US dollar was called at the time. He knew the Treasury had concerns, not least the possibility that such a currency could become a vehicle for money laundering or grow so popular as to threaten global monetary stability. But on balance, his staff thought Diem was designed carefully enough to avoid such outcomes and would have the added benefit of setting industry standards. The social media company’s reputation was sullied in Washington, following a series of controversies over data privacy, misinformation and alleged censorship. During his presidential bid the year before, Joe Biden said he had “never been a big fan” of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, describing him as “a real problem”. And prominent Democrats and Republicans alike had already spoken out against Diem specifically. A cautious operator, Powell wanted backing from Yellen, who is close to the president and ­popular among progressives. After weeks of deliberation, Yellen had made up her mind: she was out. “Yellen told him it was his decision to make, but that she would not protect him from the political fallout if he did so,” says one person briefed on the conversation. “And that was the end of Facebook’s digital currency.” Diem’s leadership would spend the next six months in a last-ditch drive to rescue the project that began by attempting to woo government regulators, then trying to browbeat them and, in a final folly, exploring working with Zuckerberg’s one-time nemeses. But this January, Diem confirmed that it was winding down for good. The remains of Zuckerberg’s digital money dream would be sold to a little-known Californian bank for $182mn, marking one of the most spectacular, if little-noted, failures of his career. Over the past few months, the Financial Times has spoken to some 30 people involved with the project, including executives, developers, lobbyists and the regulators and politicians who ultimately killed it. (Many of them spoke on condition of anonymity because Facebook requires employees and partners to sign non-disclosure agreements.) What emerges is a picture of Silicon Valley executives who thought they could charge into finance and make billions, if only they could surmount technical and regulatory barriers. What they failed to realise was that the very fact Facebook had conceived the idea, doomed it. As one government official involved in the process puts it: “Diem spent years trying to reverse engineer their project to fix all of its faults. But they could never fix being linked to Facebook. It was their original sin.” Meta, as Facebook has since been rebranded, is one of a handful of tech companies now threatened with much stricter regulation, even break-up, by US politicians and regulators who have come to see it as a malignant force in American commerce and democracy. Nowhere has the divide between Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill been more clearly exposed than in the tortured downfall of Diem. David Marcus was soaking up the Caribbean sun. It was the winter of 2017, and the dapper, French-born executive was on holiday in the Dominican Republic. Marcus, 48, was the head of Facebook’s Messenger app and a close confidant of Zuckerberg’s. His silver hair and slick suits set him apart from his younger, scruffier colleagues. Peers jokingly called him the “George Clooney of Silicon Valley,” and he was seen as powerful within the company. Lying on the beach, Marcus indulged in some blue-sky thinking. What if he could find a way to create a global digital currency and integrate it into Facebook? Marcus was no stranger to the worlds of start-ups and digital payments. He sold his first company at 27. In 2011, a subsequent mobile payments start-up he founded was acquired by PayPal for $240mn. Within nine months, he was PayPal’s president. In 2014, Zuckerberg recruited him to run Messenger, which he’d help grow to more than 1.3bn users. But three years on, he was restless. Meanwhile, blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies had become useful tools for dark web criminals as well as the lofty obsessions of programmers and utopian technologists. But they had yet to be adopted by any big corporations. For Facebook’s more than two-billion-strong user base, crypto could offer a convenient and cheap way to move money around the world, Marcus thought. For the social media company itself, it could provide a treasure trove of data about what people spend their money on. Interrupting his holiday abroad, Marcus texted Zuckerberg to outline his ruminations. Intrigued, the CEO gave his blessing to explore the idea further. So Marcus began methodically crafting a tool beloved by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs: a memo outlining the new project’s objectives, defining ­success and quantifying how to get there. Morgan Beller was a 24-year-old whirlwind. Fast-talking and animated, she had been a partner at venture capital group Andreessen Horowitz before joining Facebook’s corporate development team in 2017. She was also a fierce blockchain advocate, who spent the latter part of that year trying to shop the technology to whichever Facebook executive would listen: why wasn’t the company embracing decentralisation and open protocols for its users? Could it get into bitcoin mining? Should Facebook groups be able to issue their own digital tokens? “It’s a really big company and taking really big risks is hard,” she tells the FT. “To give Facebook credit, the leadership was very receptive and very open. I didn’t have anyone say no, at least to meeting and brainstorming.” In early 2018, Marcus and Beller joined forces. At first, they worked in a small, empty room, walls adorned with whiteboards, on Facebook’s main campus in Menlo Park. Soon they moved to a larger, more secluded building on the outskirts of the company’s headquarters. Only employees with particular passes — the crypto experts, engineers and economists they brought on board — could access the facility. Their top-secret project was codenamed Libra. The team was ­“paranoid about leaks”, says Beller and was “like a secret Swat operation”. This would be the first of several incarnations, each intended to conform to the difficulties and demands of launching a digital currency from within Facebook. Initially, the dream was for Libra to be like bitcoin, a currency owned by no one group and built on open-source technology. This would allow individuals to store, spend and transfer money across borders with close to zero transactio­­n fees. Unlike bitcoin, it would be backed by something real: a reserve of low-risk assets including bank deposits in various currencies and US Treasuries. (This kind of crypto is known as stablecoin.) Facebook declined to comment. Marcus, who also declined to be interviewed, wrote in a statement: “Libra was about building a protocol for money on the internet to enable people and ­businesses who are currently left behind by the current system to access sound digital money and cheap payments.” To get the project off the ground — before it was to become fully decentralised — leadership was needed to develop the technology. Marcus and Beller were conscious that Facebook alone should not be seen as directing the effort. So they created a non-profit association, also called Libra, of which Facebook was to be one of many members. To avoid appearing US-­centric, it would be technically based in Switzerland, a more neutral financial centre that was also an emerging crypto hub at the time. (Marcus and Beller continued to work primarily from California.) Weekly newsletter For the latest news and views on fintech from the FT’s network of correspondents around the world, sign up to our weekly newsletter #fintechFT Sign up here with one click The set-up proved convincing. By mid-2019, Marcus and Beller’s pitching had brought on board some 28 companies and non-profits, including Uber, Vodafone, Spotify, Visa and Mastercard as founding members. Each would have equal voting rights and pay $10mn into the reserve; each would guide the project’s development and, eventually, integrate Libra into its services, bringing the digital coin to consumers worldwide. On top of being an equal founding member, Facebook would build its own digital wallet for the

  • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    19 days ago

    Funny to hear from the company that went all in to the point it renamed itself. The metaverse failure seems to have a big impact

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      The metaverse is for creating, not really for visiting. If you are an artist, creating worlds in 3d in VR might be interesting to you. I wouldnt look at it as a way to make money, more of a hobby tool.

      • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yeah, and they can’t expect it to become mainstream if they build the experience around VR headsets

  • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    I due not want my corporation holding Bitcoin, if I want exposure I’ll buy Bitcoin directly. They should be holding a bit of debt optimally.