U.S. Congress drafts bill to stop Zuckerberg's Libra(scribd.com)
scribd.com
U.S. Congress drafts bill to stop Zuckerberg's Libra
https://www.scribd.com/document/417056845/Keep-Big-Tech-out-of-Finance-Act-Discussion-Draft
55 comments
"A source familiar with the matter told The Block that the discussion draft is being floated by the House Financial Services Committee staff. However, it doesn't have an official lead yet."
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/tiny/congressional-leaders-ha...
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/tiny/congressional-leaders-ha...
Looks like he's a Yahoo finance writer.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congressional-leaders-drafted...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congressional-leaders-drafted...
I'm not big into politics but my understanding is these click bait bills are drafted and thrown out on a weekly basis. The purpose of these bills that will never pass is so when people try to get re-elected they can say things like "I tried to stop Facebook from interfering with our financial system" or something along those lines that appeals to their base.
Yea I agree. Anyone can say they want to stop something, but untill actual debate starts happening over the bill nothing is even close to being passed.
It's called position-taking and it's the most important (in terms of consequences) part of politics.
I lose faith in representative democracy by the day. I certainly don't feel like my opinions are being represented 99% of the time. But the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of what's happening in Congress at any given time.
I've thought of building an app where voters could enter their opinions and be notified whenever their representatives vote for or against their views, but I can't figure out monetization.
I've thought of building an app where voters could enter their opinions and be notified whenever their representatives vote for or against their views, but I can't figure out monetization.
I assume you're saying you disagree with this action by congress, but you're jumping past the issue and into something fairly different.
For what it's worth, the two primary issues I've seen raised with Libre is monopoly and finance regulation. I wouldn't be very excited to hear Bank of America is getting into social networking; I'm not sure why I should be excited that Facebook is getting into banking. As for regulation, my (limited) understanding is that if Facebook wants to act like a bank, it needs to be regulated like one.
For what it's worth, the two primary issues I've seen raised with Libre is monopoly and finance regulation. I wouldn't be very excited to hear Bank of America is getting into social networking; I'm not sure why I should be excited that Facebook is getting into banking. As for regulation, my (limited) understanding is that if Facebook wants to act like a bank, it needs to be regulated like one.
Libra is backed by 100% reserve assets. Banks have like 1% requirement. Libra is already better positioned in that respect.
What does this have to do with Libra? I bet most Americans are in favor of stopping Libra; aka Facebook's private currency.
Central banking is a huge part of international economic policy and stability. There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
Central banking is a huge part of international economic policy and stability. There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
> There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
And the reason is probably a bit more nuanced than this sentence projects. Furthermore, reasoning in the 1900s should not be used to justify government monopoly on money in 2019.
And the reason is probably a bit more nuanced than this sentence projects. Furthermore, reasoning in the 1900s should not be used to justify government monopoly on money in 2019.
Fair. I guess the 2008 financial crisis is an elephant in the room, for instance, revealing flaws in our current economic approach. But that is a very different conversation, I think, for a very different audience.
Sometimes, being in the cryptocurrency industry, it feels like a shouting match between people who have never studied economics or distributed systems or cryptography.
Sometimes, being in the cryptocurrency industry, it feels like a shouting match between people who have never studied economics or distributed systems or cryptography.
> What does this have to do with Libra? I bet most Americans are in favor of stopping Libra; aka Facebook's private currency.
> Central banking is a huge part of international economic policy and stability. There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
Private currencies seem to be legal so long as they aren't viewed by the government to be a method of avoiding taxes. Can you point me to some more information about this? Everything I've read seems to point to private currencies being legal in the United States at least (aside, I am aware of the liberty dollar case in the US. The government's angle was that it too closely resembled US currency iirc).
> Central banking is a huge part of international economic policy and stability. There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
Private currencies seem to be legal so long as they aren't viewed by the government to be a method of avoiding taxes. Can you point me to some more information about this? Everything I've read seems to point to private currencies being legal in the United States at least (aside, I am aware of the liberty dollar case in the US. The government's angle was that it too closely resembled US currency iirc).
Yes, you are right that they are legal, I misremembered. Good catch.
The spirit of my comment shouldn't change though, if I instead refer to the establishment of a U.S. dollar.
That being said, the fact that you have to pay rent with legal tender in states like CA goes a long way in regulating private currencies.
The spirit of my comment shouldn't change though, if I instead refer to the establishment of a U.S. dollar.
That being said, the fact that you have to pay rent with legal tender in states like CA goes a long way in regulating private currencies.
> but I can't figure out monetization.
Seriously? This is the thing stopping you? It doesn't sound so much like you care about democracy so much as making money. Clearly you can use ads but that isn't very profitable. You have to ask yourself, which is more important: democracy or the time you put in to make the app. You can even make that decision AFTER you have made the app (you don't have to figure out monetization first)
Seriously? This is the thing stopping you? It doesn't sound so much like you care about democracy so much as making money. Clearly you can use ads but that isn't very profitable. You have to ask yourself, which is more important: democracy or the time you put in to make the app. You can even make that decision AFTER you have made the app (you don't have to figure out monetization first)
Please consider the possibility that OP has this great idea but can’t afford to launch it out of their own pocket.
Also consider the fact that this tool would likely see a lot of traffic, and some legal challenges as well (launched by the politicians this will be exposing). All of that costs $$$$.
Also consider the fact that this tool would likely see a lot of traffic, and some legal challenges as well (launched by the politicians this will be exposing). All of that costs $$$$.
Sometimes "I can't figure out monetization" doesn't mean "I don't see how this will throw off FU money", but instead means "I have no idea how I'd pay for this".
I'd certainly appreciate such an app. I won't guilt you by saying 'what about civic duty' but do consider that it sounds like you want people to be informed such that they know the bad things politicians do, and creating such an app may help achieve that. Meaning of course, benefit to you though not monetarily.
Alternatively, you could always go ads, or maybe preferably, add a paid feature for certain niceties(one touch calling, assistance in writing, etc).
Alternatively, you could always go ads, or maybe preferably, add a paid feature for certain niceties(one touch calling, assistance in writing, etc).
[deleted]
Try living under nonrepresentative dictatorship sometime. Not only does your vote not matter, but neither does your life or basic human rights.
> I've thought of building an app where voters could enter their opinions and be notified whenever their representatives vote for or against their views, but I can't figure out monetization.
Have you read a bill? It’s filled with “replace subsection (a) with subsection (b)” and other legalese because they’re literally making law. You either have to be knowledgeable enough to understand the bill, or take the politician’s word on what the bill says, or rely on a news article summarizing what the bill says, or rely on the activist group who projects the unintended and intended effects of the bill.
Sounds like you want to create a news organization that has your editorial judgment, accessible with a fancy custom app that uses “machine learning” or whatever buzzword’s being used.
Have you read a bill? It’s filled with “replace subsection (a) with subsection (b)” and other legalese because they’re literally making law. You either have to be knowledgeable enough to understand the bill, or take the politician’s word on what the bill says, or rely on a news article summarizing what the bill says, or rely on the activist group who projects the unintended and intended effects of the bill.
Sounds like you want to create a news organization that has your editorial judgment, accessible with a fancy custom app that uses “machine learning” or whatever buzzword’s being used.
Do it dude! Ads are one way, but also look at Patreon for subscribers.
If it's related to people's individual political preferences, and delivers easy to consume information to those who want to learn about their political environment yet feel lost in the process of figuring it out, then it's likely that people wouldn't mind donating a dollar or so a month to get that information. Also, people would really value the fact that it wouldn't be a matter of taking a politician by their words but by there actions. It'll cut through the bullshit for a lot of voters/users.
The potential positive consequences of building such an app are significant
If it's related to people's individual political preferences, and delivers easy to consume information to those who want to learn about their political environment yet feel lost in the process of figuring it out, then it's likely that people wouldn't mind donating a dollar or so a month to get that information. Also, people would really value the fact that it wouldn't be a matter of taking a politician by their words but by there actions. It'll cut through the bullshit for a lot of voters/users.
The potential positive consequences of building such an app are significant
I lose faith in representative democracy by the day
but I can't figure out monetization.
Oh boy.
but I can't figure out monetization.
Oh boy.
Haha, I know.... that is the most HN comment ever...
Not happy about the world, wanting to change in some idealistic way, but how to run ads and make money on it?
Not happy about the world, wanting to change in some idealistic way, but how to run ads and make money on it?
Right but if you can't make money on something then there's a cap on how good it can be. E.g. say what you want about Facebook, but it wouldn't be nearly as polished if it were made by only Zuckerberg working 5 or 10 hours a week in his spare time.
This. It's weird that people have such different reactions to "monetized" and "sustainable" when they're so closely connected.
They can but don't have to be connected and when you put it in context of "saving democracy" particularly as the OP was complaining about something they think they know how to fix but won't because they can't make money from it then it fits a hilarious stereotype of precisely what is hurting democracy (profit over democracy).
More like I don't know how I could afford the time and money to build and run the service.
Oh I get you probably didn’t mean to come across in the way I described but was trying to explain why people took it that way.
In the USA, one simply has to contact their representatives to let them know about their opinions. They track it, whether you want to believe that or not. Whether they use it or not is another story, but we're not a direct democracy here, so we elect representatives to make decisions for us.
This app exists, and it looks like they accept donations. I've signed up and it's pretty useful: https://issuevoter.org
Ads? I'd assume you'd be completely against this, but collecting a whole bunch of voting preferences would probably be incredibly valuable to someone.
Just give proper notice.
Just give proper notice.
Doesn't that also potentially undermine democracy? Ads are specifically intended to sway peoples thinking. I know this already happens with politics but do we really need more tools to influence people? (Yes we can do it for good, but there's equal potential for bad) I'm not saying we should, but I'm saying we should think about this before that kind of data is mass gathered and sold.
> Doesn't that also potentially undermine democracy?
I don't know about that. It's true that ads are meant to sway thoughts, but aren't debates basically supposed to do the same thing? The problem would be misinformation.
The information shod definitely be use carefully and thoughtfully, I agree. Or possibly even not collected at all, if at all possible. I was just pointing out one avenue of monetization.
I don't know about that. It's true that ads are meant to sway thoughts, but aren't debates basically supposed to do the same thing? The problem would be misinformation.
The information shod definitely be use carefully and thoughtfully, I agree. Or possibly even not collected at all, if at all possible. I was just pointing out one avenue of monetization.
I think the difference with debates is that they are moderated and usually fact checked. Ads on the other hand are much more prolific and it would be substantially harder to fact check everything. But the ads isn't my concern, my concern is the data.
You could use the data for good. It could help politicians and candidates find out what constituents want to a high accuracy. This would clearly be a good thing.
The issue is how that data is handled. If that data becomes public (you always have to assume there's this chance even if it is controlled) then it could easily be used for nefarious purposes. We've seen that it doesn't take much money to spread a lot of misinformation. Because of this I don't think it would be a good idea to just sell that data to whoever wants it. There could also be problems of resale.
You could use the data for good. It could help politicians and candidates find out what constituents want to a high accuracy. This would clearly be a good thing.
The issue is how that data is handled. If that data becomes public (you always have to assume there's this chance even if it is controlled) then it could easily be used for nefarious purposes. We've seen that it doesn't take much money to spread a lot of misinformation. Because of this I don't think it would be a good idea to just sell that data to whoever wants it. There could also be problems of resale.
Disclaimer: I work on a decentralized cryptocurrency
For the HN'ers who want to jump in and evangelize cryptocurrencies:
Libra is not a cryptocurrency. It is a Facebook-controlled private currency intended to circumvent the international banking system. Facebook, here, is in every way a financial institution.
Please don't let them fool you. The "decentralized" "byzantine-fault tolerant" "cryptocurrency" aspect is just tacked on as a marketing ploy.
For the HN'ers who want to jump in and evangelize cryptocurrencies:
Libra is not a cryptocurrency. It is a Facebook-controlled private currency intended to circumvent the international banking system. Facebook, here, is in every way a financial institution.
Please don't let them fool you. The "decentralized" "byzantine-fault tolerant" "cryptocurrency" aspect is just tacked on as a marketing ploy.
Cryptocurrencies are tulips, that is investment vehicles of the greater fool style. They only have value if you can find a greater fool to sell it to. By and large they're not useful as a currency.
Libra could be. It's also managed at somewhat arms length from Facebook in that it's run by the Libra foundation. I say somewhat because Facebook intends to integrate it into WhatsApp and Messenger.
I don't see a technical or organizational reason Libra can't be a crytocurrency - and the very first successful one.
Libra could be. It's also managed at somewhat arms length from Facebook in that it's run by the Libra foundation. I say somewhat because Facebook intends to integrate it into WhatsApp and Messenger.
I don't see a technical or organizational reason Libra can't be a crytocurrency - and the very first successful one.
I agree that fiat only has value if a government, or some other group with capital backs it.
Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail.
Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people.
I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation.
Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.
Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail.
Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people.
I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation.
Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.
I didn't say anything about fiat currencies.
I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility.
Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice.
People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.
I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility.
Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice.
People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.
They also write in their whitepaper that Libra isn't permissionless[1]. Decentralization in a cryptocurrency is only a means to an end, an end that should be permissionless.
[1]: https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-bl...
[1]: https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-bl...
Exactly, Libra is a permissioned protocol. With a very vague roadmap for decentralization that I think we should interpret as a marketing ploy / foot-in-the-door-to-avoid-regulation.
> It is a facebook-controlled private currency
Can you clarify? Isn't the currency going to be owned by a consortium of various global businesses [1]? Are you unaware of that?
[1]https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members
Can you clarify? Isn't the currency going to be owned by a consortium of various global businesses [1]? Are you unaware of that?
[1]https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members
Yes, I simplified a bit. But remember, they are each paying facebook at least $10 million, who for now controls the development. I would be very surprised, if somehow Facebook maneuvered themselves out of a position of power over the Libra Reserve.
Even if the private currency is controlled equally by these companies, I am still fear-struck. Do I want these companies to be setting global economic policy?
That implies financial regulation that is even less democratic than it is now!
Even if the private currency is controlled equally by these companies, I am still fear-struck. Do I want these companies to be setting global economic policy?
That implies financial regulation that is even less democratic than it is now!
A cursory reading of this bill suggests that it blocks “large utility platforms” from creating “digital assets” used as a “medium of exchange or use of value”.
1) Does this language even cover Facebook’s Libra? They’ve been careful to legally insulate themselves somewhat from Calibra / constrain their governance over Libra for this very reason.
2) Wouldn’t this bill simply open a space for independent projects like Theil and Altman’s Reserve currency to do the same thing (establish a self-stabilizing cryptocurrency in developing national markets) with complete impunity? In what sense does this bill meaningfully restrict “big tech” if Facebook stakeholder Theil wins big either way?
3) Assuming 1 and 2 are real problems, what would an appropriate response to projects like Libra be? Short of banning domestic cryptocurrency trade more broadly, I’m not sure what a sufficiently restrictive law would look like.
1) Does this language even cover Facebook’s Libra? They’ve been careful to legally insulate themselves somewhat from Calibra / constrain their governance over Libra for this very reason.
2) Wouldn’t this bill simply open a space for independent projects like Theil and Altman’s Reserve currency to do the same thing (establish a self-stabilizing cryptocurrency in developing national markets) with complete impunity? In what sense does this bill meaningfully restrict “big tech” if Facebook stakeholder Theil wins big either way?
3) Assuming 1 and 2 are real problems, what would an appropriate response to projects like Libra be? Short of banning domestic cryptocurrency trade more broadly, I’m not sure what a sufficiently restrictive law would look like.
If you agree that:
1) U.S. economic policy should be set by democratically elected people, and that
2) Facebook (or the Libra consortium) is not democratically elected, and that
3) Government monetary policy (aka the USD) stabilizes the economy,
Then, consider supporting bills like this. (I'm sure it has problems and will be rewritten many times)
1) U.S. economic policy should be set by democratically elected people, and that
2) Facebook (or the Libra consortium) is not democratically elected, and that
3) Government monetary policy (aka the USD) stabilizes the economy,
Then, consider supporting bills like this. (I'm sure it has problems and will be rewritten many times)
[deleted]
There is no way this would be constitutional.
You're already not allowed to make a currency that competes with the USD. This seems to just be a clarification on top of that.
Why would this be unconstitutional?? There's no constitution-granted right to create your own financial system.
Why would this be unconstitutional?? There's no constitution-granted right to create your own financial system.
Why would it be? Regulating banking and financial institutions is well within the ambit of Congressional powers.
[deleted]
The free peoples of the world need tools to prevent these relentless assaults on our liberties.
Unfortunately, we’ve been sociologically engineered to desire a false sense of safety delivered by “benevolent” overlords, instead of actual community interdependence.
Removal of any sense or ability for individual volition in matters of personal commerce is one of the final steps toward complete servitude.
Fortunately, help is at hand. A new generation of decentralized algorithms supporting cryptocurrency commerce resistant to (state-initiated) Network Partitions will support unstoppable commerce between independent agents, and will work at small (local network) scale, as securely and easily as at global scale (> millions of aggregate transact per second).
And not a moment too soon.
Unfortunately, we’ve been sociologically engineered to desire a false sense of safety delivered by “benevolent” overlords, instead of actual community interdependence.
Removal of any sense or ability for individual volition in matters of personal commerce is one of the final steps toward complete servitude.
Fortunately, help is at hand. A new generation of decentralized algorithms supporting cryptocurrency commerce resistant to (state-initiated) Network Partitions will support unstoppable commerce between independent agents, and will work at small (local network) scale, as securely and easily as at global scale (> millions of aggregate transact per second).
And not a moment too soon.
Disclaimer: I work on decentralized cryptocurrencies.
I think your claims are flawed.
You missed the whole "Big Tech" part of this bill. In fact, I'd argue Facebook has probably encroached more on our liberties than any other American institution.
If you read the bill, it's about preventing Facebook from becoming a finance company, to prevent it from circumventing finance regulations.
The international monetary system is built on government-managed central banking. This is why modern economics are so stable (and a huge player in post-WW2 growth). Governments did away with private currencies a long time ago, and for better or for worse it is a pillar of 21st century economics.
I think your claims are flawed.
You missed the whole "Big Tech" part of this bill. In fact, I'd argue Facebook has probably encroached more on our liberties than any other American institution.
If you read the bill, it's about preventing Facebook from becoming a finance company, to prevent it from circumventing finance regulations.
The international monetary system is built on government-managed central banking. This is why modern economics are so stable (and a huge player in post-WW2 growth). Governments did away with private currencies a long time ago, and for better or for worse it is a pillar of 21st century economics.
Libra is a Fiat currency proxy; all on/off-ramps will be KYC and AML protected, no significant money creation action will be allowed by Facebook. It’s basically an SDR for the great unwashed.
So, it basically reduces USD to a weighted component of a currency basket. That’s the only thing this bill is trying to prevent - reducing the supremacy of the USD. Look past the propaganda. Facebook won’t be allowed to bypass existing regulations. They’re... regulations, after all.
Modern economics is only “so stable” for big players; small businesses and flyover country slobs like me and you are sheep to the slaughter.
And, no, Libra isn’t going to do a thing for us, other than insulate is from a bit of currency instability and lubricate retail transactions and perhaps remissions back home. It’s a proof-of-oligarchy permissioned global-consensus blockchain; nothing interesting. No improvement to the risky one-mistake-and-you’re-dead PKI security model, so most normals will eventually lose their money, to either incompetency or theft.
If you work on what you believe are decentralized crypto currencies, please describe, precisely, what occurs when your global system experiences a total N-segment Network Partition — as will occur in the first 15 minutes of the next hot war; specific focus on A) system livenness, and B) account “values” after 1+ week of total partition, followed by global network restoration...
So, it basically reduces USD to a weighted component of a currency basket. That’s the only thing this bill is trying to prevent - reducing the supremacy of the USD. Look past the propaganda. Facebook won’t be allowed to bypass existing regulations. They’re... regulations, after all.
Modern economics is only “so stable” for big players; small businesses and flyover country slobs like me and you are sheep to the slaughter.
And, no, Libra isn’t going to do a thing for us, other than insulate is from a bit of currency instability and lubricate retail transactions and perhaps remissions back home. It’s a proof-of-oligarchy permissioned global-consensus blockchain; nothing interesting. No improvement to the risky one-mistake-and-you’re-dead PKI security model, so most normals will eventually lose their money, to either incompetency or theft.
If you work on what you believe are decentralized crypto currencies, please describe, precisely, what occurs when your global system experiences a total N-segment Network Partition — as will occur in the first 15 minutes of the next hot war; specific focus on A) system livenness, and B) account “values” after 1+ week of total partition, followed by global network restoration...
Right, the reason bitcoin hasn’t become mainstream is the algorithms
One big reason, yes - one mistake and you lose your money. Statistically almost guaranteed for an account with regular usage! Look at the statistics. These are non-ergodicic probabilities; you don’t get to “play again” when they affect you. Losing your money in cryptocurrency PKI systems is closer to “Russian Roulette” than a “roll 1, you lose your bet” dice game. Screw up just once and it’s all gone.
So yes, the algorithms are a big part of why normals don’t use crypto — and rightly so.
So yes, the algorithms are a big part of why normals don’t use crypto — and rightly so.
Who's "Ryan Todd", anyway?