The following are my assessments of the formative next steps in the evolution of Facebook’s Libra:
i. The Libra approach is designed to enable Facebook participate in global regulated payments without itself becoming regulated. All regulators who allow any form of digital payments to be accepted in their respective countries will also insist on the digital asset to be domiciled in the country, including setting up local servers. This is okay for Libra, but not okay for Facebook at all cost.
ii. Libra has too many legacy stakeholders of nearly 100 old-world institutions old world institutions trying to survive into the digital age. Any committee approach will result in only lowest common denominator holding them together. For global payments this is not a bad thing. It creates ubiquity. But it also creates a few setbacks:
iii. Project Libra wants to solve all the problems in global payments all at once – from merchant acceptance to becoming an alternative fiat currency. I am not sure how much of this was intended by the promoters themselves, or if they are reactions by the media, but boy, there is a lot of fodder for global discussion right there. However, all the most successful ubiquitous payment models anywhere in the world are defined by their simplicity, not their complexity. So, Libra itself may or may not succeed on one of its most unintended simple features and not for the ones touted by its promoters. Ditto all the other digital boats rising with the tide.
iv. Libra is not designed to benefit domestic distributors. So while it has strong global distribution partners, the domestic players will boycott Libra and push their own local variations. Libra is too big business oligopolistic when seen from a domestic angle. So, look out for the simpler players in the local community who will ace Libra.
v. Also, do remember that the same Mark Zuckerberg announced Whatsapp Pay just a few weeks before. At best, Libra could be a red herring, getting the world to discuss a complex product when the easier one is rolled out under everybody else’s noses and benefit from the concessions given by the global regulators. For Facebook, it is vital for Whatsapp to also operate on the same principle as Libra – “regulate my payments but don’t regulate me”.
Libra is still the forerunner of the real digital global payments platform. It is a necessary step because:
i. the incumbent institutional players are best placed to negotiate with old-school regulators to pave the path.
ii. The technology for permissionless cryptocurrencies are still not fully developed yet. The permissioned Libra model does not require energy sapping and slow algorithm processing technologies and it promotes the interest of its powerful sponsors.
iii. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are still tagged as too libertarian, just like cowry shells were in the days of barter trading, until nobody thought that way anymore.
Any caveats? Ironically, I happen to think that the weaker Facebook becomes, the more likely Libra will succeed. Weakness can be in the form of greater personalization of content platforms like Facebook with the advent of new technologies.
All of these developments will take us one step nearer, but not quite there, towards the eventual universal acceptance of true digital assets such as bitcoin and a flood of others. I am not really a fan of Libra or the idea that big business should dictate the future, but this is a necessary phase. The Libra project actually confirms that the day will come soon enough.
Emmanuel Daniel