Topic: New bill would make Facebook’s cryptocurrency a security under the law - page 2. (Read 709 times)

They're useful for bootstrapping altcoin exchanges who don't have fiat markets. Poloniex, Bittrex, and Binance started that way. They can also be used on DEX platforms.

They aren't ideal but until decentralized stablecoins like DAI get decent liquidity, they serve a purpose.


Speculators gonna speculate. Taking profit or hedging means selling for fiat. Stablecoins meet that need.

The government have been trying to regulate the bitcoins too , they are gonna add bitcoins in the law which protects the investors against frauds , same they are doing for the libra , I think it is a bad thing to do since slowly by slowly the corruption will soon sweep in the cryptocurrencies too like the normal Fiat money but on the other hand they are not really blocking it but we should understand that this way they would become centralized till an extent and I don't know if that would work or not.
Let's see what happens.

They should be questioned not just because it is the right of the people to know the reason behind each and every policy imposed on them but because most often these policies appear anti-people and pro-elites which are only a tiny minority among the billions. If crypto-related policies are to be crafted based on the honest voices of the people, the policies should turn out in favor of crypto. But since the policy-makers are limited in their actions not to earn the ire of their rich financiers, we can expect the policies to be biased.

As per typical your posts on this forum are pro banker and pro regulation. And so I would ask you to respond to this post, below which directly addresses your stance.  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53165808

Facebook's libracoin is a crypto start up. They're proposing it be classified as a security to kill it. As mentioned, winklevoss ETF proposals made to the SEC are a crypto start up. The SEC always kills it, while practically every nation on earth allows crypto ETFs. The SEC stepped in and killed many crypto start ups by imposing regulation making coin ICOs available only to accredited investors. Which means its only available to those who earn more than $100,000 per year.

Regulators and lawmakers create policies which affect the lives of billions and should be questioned. The US stance on crypto and other topics is a double standard in comparison to the precedents the rest of the world follow.

I'll try to make it more obvious how US policy on crypto constitutes a double standard.

The media, analysts and professionals say the US should adopt a VAT tax as european nations have it. But then european nations also legalize crypto ETFs. Why do they push VAT but not ETF. There is a double standard present.

The media, analysts and professionals say the US needs socialised universal healthcare as europe has it. But then europe also has access to stablecoins like tether and leveraged crypto exchanges like bitmex while americans do not. There is a double standard there.

Regulators and lawmakers create policies which affect the lives of billions and should be questioned. The US stance on crypto and other topics is a double standard in comparison to the precedents the rest of the world follow.

Good sign though. And this is the thing facebook have been long currently waiting. Though it is in the way, it is still not sure on what would be the result of this proposed bill. Looking back then, government in US (if I remember it correctly) are asking stupid question about facebook stuff particularly about its own security. It just crossed my mind that, what if, they are still holding such idealism with regards to facebook and not to libra itself upon approving this bill.

While the government is planning to pass this regulation to have a greater control over Libra, what will stop Facebook from outsourcing it to a different company and then intergrating it in thier system. I don’t think Mark is so stupid that he’ll fall for this trap, I’m hundred percent sure he’ll figure a loophole around this law.

The US isn't "aborting start-ups".

They're just calling out stable coins, which are essentially fake cryptos. If you want the dollar, use the dollar! why add a middleman called a stablecoin pegged to the dollar, with the additional costs of "managing" it and having to hold reserves?

And if you want a cryptocurrency, then hold a genuine cryptocurrency. If you don't like the volatility then go back to fiat.

America has a strange tendency to push double standards which kill american jobs, and restrict american economic growth. In sectors where every other nation in the world embraces said standards.

While the rest of the world scrambles to snatch up marketshare in cryptocurrencies and payment processors, the united states chooses to abort its own native start ups in those sectors. Guaranteeing the USA is left behind by its competition. The SEC stalled Winklevoss applications for a US crypto ETF, while europe and other nations around the world have no trouble implementing their own crypto ETF markets to boost job markets and economies. American regulators deny US traders access to many crypto exchanges and services for their own "protection". As if americans were the only country in the entire world lacking the intelligence or sophistication to utilize bitmex or another crypto exchange which allows trading with leverage. Even stablecoins like tether have banned US customers.

I don't see this move on the part of US lawmakers and regulators as being legitimate. But rather a double standard reinforcing a crooked agenda many of us have noticed over the years. Which says its ok for every nation on earth to reap economic and job growth from innovations like cryptocurrencies. But its not ok if americans wish to do the same & this should be banned or regulated out of existence to prevent it from occurring.

That should be fine at least Facebook is restricted and under heavy regulation, they can backed it with assets because they have a lot of it, the Congress has seen everything Facebook is capable of doing, it will become a top security token in the market.
I think all companies as huge as Facebook should be considered and categorized as a security token.

I am sure that Facebook's Libra will be taking in this news as something they can still work with. Libra's people are all willing to work with the USA government just to be given the necessary approval to start the whole project. Strict regulations can in fact the best of Libra because we know that just like the government this is also a centralized entity and thus has to be subjected according to what that proposed law (of approved) do entails. And with this regulation in place, we might be seeing other players also coming to the market. Once Libra is approved in the USA market, it would be easier for it to penetrate the global market. Facebook has been a very regulated social media conglomerate so it is welcoming strict regulations with an open arms and even with a smile.

I love it when you call it currency digital. You sound like Yoda. Anyway, Libra should be treated as more than just Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. This will really mess up the way people view Libra. I think it would be best if congress will convene all those companies that gave their commitments, including those that backed out afterwards, and ask them why they think Libra is a good project. They might received some wisdom behind the reasoning of these wealthy companies. 

Got allowed from United state with Facebook coin is not easy, how come Mark zuckerberg can resolve their problem when many Facebook user data leak out to public but he can solve in front of minister in United State, I think with Libra coin he can give some fees for United State minister to get legal using Libra there as investment way or currency digital.

Facebook is the largest network in the world. What better foundation could you build a payment network from?

At the very least, it would disrupt the remittance industry in a big way because they could offer massively lower costs than firms like Western Union.


People pay out the ass for international remittances. That's who Libra was targeting. If I used Western Union to send $100 to China right now, they would take 10-11% in fees.

Even if it is a "security" they will not be out of the gate right away, there are so many rules and so forth they would have to follow and it being a securities doesn't really become overnight from what they started. So, facebook would have to make a correct decision there, I know they can make it work in 100+ countries but the important ones are like 10, if they can't do it in that 10 country that means the other 100+ doesn't mean anything to them.

UK+USA+CHINA+GERMANY+FRANCE+ITALY+SPAIN+NETHERLANDS+KOREA and maybe some other big nations, if you can't get most of those nations I am sorry but you are basically rowing for nothing and going against the tide. Whats the purpose of having 10 poor African countries for example if you don't have UK, just one UK is greater than 20+ poor African+Asian country.

In my opinion, the bill will definitely get passed and become part of the law. Governments of advanced countries understand the power of crypto currencies and blockchain very well but due to some insecurities and uncertainties, they have been resisting the usage of digital assets for long now. Also, their support will be with stablecoins that can be controlled but decentralized coins will get massive attention.

Regulation as a continuation of the act of caring for something that is potential, although disappointing in my opinion this is good. at least there must be a lot controlling libra under the jurisdiction line. I was quite curious whether the authority would be more stringent on things that were more unfavorable globally, and libra would be more profitable for the US itself.

And now the government is showing its power and this is just not wielding the big stick because if they want they can completely outlaw Libra or confiscate the entire project but either way its something that needs to be discussed. The introduction of this law to me is faulty because it specifically mentioned Libra which makes it a form of target and when things are done that way in so obvious manner, the intention might have been eroded in misconception. Either way, time will tell whether Libra or the Bill have have the last laugh.

Why go to another bill just so the government could still control it.
They are giving Mark a lot of hard work and something to think.

There is a faster solution to it. Put it in the garbage and close it. Wait for the dump truck to take it then bury it. 
They are putting too much efforts into something that could also jeopardize their financial system.

Exactly. The real battle is happening outside the hearings and the meetings. They happened outside the peering eyes of the media. All these public hearings and televised meetings are the mere surface. Behind all these are the real battles. Rich bankers asking time from the lawmakers. Influential businessmen negotiating with them, giving them offers, some of which many of these lawmakers cannot refuse. And when they appear in front of the people and the nation, they are but mere puppets.

Of course most of these lawmakers doesn't have any idea on any after effect if Libra becomes operational that is why they are speculating negatively including the idea that it could create a disruption upon the U.S. dollar and could have unintended consequences along the way.

Perhaps it would be fine to assume that these lawmakers are being lobbied constantly by most financial organizations that are anti crypto so we expect Libra will receive more pressure from lawmakers.