Talk:Diem (digital currency)

Notability not inherted

Considring most cryptocurrencies get deleted on wikipedia, you better come up with a btter explanation than "facebook coin". Chainlink got adopted by google yet isn't notable. 45.118.115.122 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case, there has been significant media coverage as well as opposition by notable government figures in France, in addition to attention by the U.S. Senate. Novabrahm (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Novabrahm. Extensive coverage, quick negative response by regulatory bodies, and the stated goals of the project (backed by considerable wealth) all make it notable. Mainly 20:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, outlets have reported on Libra since at least April, and possibly before. Mainly 20:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the association with Facebook and the wide participation by 28 other organisations this one does really seem to be notable. Covered on the PM programme on the BBC yesterday. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The coverage in the Financial Times has been extensive - both in the main paper and in FT Alphaville, the news blog section that does deeper analyses. (yes, FTAV is generally accepted as an RS.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FT has a whole section just on Libra - this should be drawn on heavily, it's about the best coverage - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Source for name

The name is well chosen. It is an ancient coin (Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement), it is one of the signs of the zodiac and it implies liberty. Anyone got a source discussing the etymology? JFW | T@lk 06:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps David Gerard has seen something. This is his cup of tea. JFW | T@lk 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

not that i can think of. (I was wondering when I'd find this article calling me to it ...) I'm researching and writing a piece for a proper RS publication right now on Libra, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

https://qz.com/1645838/facebook-unveils-libra-its-new-global-cryptocurrency/ lists the etymology according to a spokeswoman at the end of the article.71.89.113.167 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Questions this article should answer...

Cryptocurrencies have offered new advantages over national currencies, and disadvantages.

1. Will Libra offer anonymity?

   One advantage cryptocurrencies have offered is anonymity. Users thought their cryptocurrency accounts were essentially untraceable. Is Libra intended to be anonymous? Can users trust that it will stay anonymous? Or will facebook sell its account holder's buying patterns to retailers? Will facebook turn over records of suspicious payment patterns to law enforcement? Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Currency speculation, on the part of the Libra Foundation partners...

   The 28 partners in the Libra Foundation are responsible for making sure the Libra is backed by traditional currencies.

   Facebook says they all agreed to pony up $10 USD seed money, so Libra has real value on day one.

   Presumably, the real world value of Libra's reserves go up, when a user deposits additional real world currency, and converts it to Libra.

   Okay... So, if one of the real world currencies goes up in value, so the book value of their reserves is greater than the value of user's deposits, do the partners get to tap that windfall?

   If the real world value of one of their base currencies collapses, have the partners agreed to prop up Libra's value with additional funds of their own? Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Regulatory requirements

   One of the Fortune articles said that, to abide by certain regulations, depositors will have to provide the same kind of identification as they would for a brick and mortar bank - presumably to curb money laundering. We learned from the Quadriga debacle that many cryptocurrency exchanges are totally unregulated...

   So, what statutory regulations will apply to Libra? Geo Swan (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

is it really a cryptocurrency, if its value is tied to the value of other currencies...

is it really a cryptocurrency, if its value is tied to the value of other currencies? Bitcoin is based on "mining" certain numbers, of which there are a limited number. Its value has wildly fluctuated, in part because potential buyer's perception of its value has fluctuated.

Libra's value, on the other hand, is tied to the value of national currencies.

Will Facebook's Calibra be capable of monitoring and tracking transactions?

I modified the lead, to remove the assertion it is a cryptocurrency, when it may just be an invented online currency, and not be an actual cryptocurrency, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this area but at least according to our stablecoin article, being tied to a currency does not preclude it from being a cryptocurrency. Anne drew 14:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with calling it a cryptocurrency is that it doesn't fit the decentralised requirement, as only the Association controls the permissioned blockchain, so I linked to virtual currency in the lede which fits better, then explained that they plan to transition to a permissionless PoS cryptocurrency within 5 years. Widefox; talk 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's being called one in the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct David, which gave me a problem writing the lede. Actually, it was your comments to Rory that I first included. I've linked to blockchain#Openness which discusses the strictness of the definition, then luckily I can just skip it and state that they plan to transition to a PoS cryptocurrency later. Do you think that's an acceptable approach, slightly editorialising but to aid understanding? Widefox; talk 18:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing about blockchain aspirations is that you shouldn't believe a word of them until they verifiably happen. "Planned" is good and accurate though, I think - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The reality of this seems currently an association, developers and some early code. Widefox; talk 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Which appears not to do almost anything claimed for Libra. - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Added to the article. The current state is the crux. Plans of 5 years away given regulatory intervention looks like vaporware, and this article now looks like primary news. Widefox; talk 09:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

oh yeah. But it's sufficiently widely reported vaporware that even the vaporware is something people will look up in Wikipedia, and are. But we totally have to distinguish reported claims from reported facts ... gonna be fun - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your editing is much appreciated as it needs a consolidation after the expansion. Do we have some sort of maintenance tag for an article which can only represent recent events / WP:PRIMARYNEWS about a topic which is dominated by an announcement? It amuses me, somewhat, that a 13 year old primary topic redirect Calibra (to the car) was removed to point here, despite me setting up navigation and redirects per MOS (e.g. Calibra (company)). Widefox; talk 10:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

David, would it help to organise the article per this crucial time aspect - current / future to keep to policy WP:CRYSTAL #5 ? Widefox; talk 10:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

not really. The problem is that it's widely reported and exhaustively documented ... vaporware. It's all in the future.

I removed the "recentism" tag because that only makes sense when there's a past that's being ignored in favour of the present. Everything about this is in the present or future. Widefox is there another tag that might do the job? Not sure ... {{current}} is almost there ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't find an appropriate tag. I'm still thinking the article fails CRYSTAL #5 Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic. ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content, so isn't the notability from Facebook's involvement, more than the product announcement, so it should (in theory) be a WP:SPINOUT of Facebook titled Calibra (company). I'm not proposing that, but the policy on #5 given the maturity of the project points to it.

I've put in a section on Trust, which I presume isn't just restricted to the Reception section, but can be put in the body to describe this vital distinguisher. Widefox; talk 14:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

re: SPINOUT - yeah. But it's widely covered vaporware, as well documented as any subject that doesn't *ahem* exist yet could be ... I think we're keeping a good handle on distinguishing which bits are vapor, and - and this is important - not taking any Facebook claims at face value, 'cos they have an extensive and well-documented history of saying anything and its opposite in pre-announcements - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Libra is not a cryptocurrencie! It breaks with serveral definitions e.g. made in the paper by Jan Lansky (Linked in the wikipedia article about curyptocurrencies). Also it breaks with EVERY ethical principles established by true cryptocurrencies. The problem is that many don't understand, that blockchain doesn't equals cryptocurrencies. BLockcahin is a technology used by Libra, nothing more. Libra is centralized on the Libra Association. --Taobsen (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless and until we find mainstream, third-party reliable sources that back up the statement, it doesn't belong in the article - and certainly not wedged into the introduction. Please also review WP:OR - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly shocked. I thought Wikipedia was an INDEPENDENT, SCIENCE-based encyclopedia. This whole article doesn't belong in the cryptocurrency category and it should also be clearly stated in this article why it is not a cryptocurrency! Just because some media, and the Libra Association itself, call Libra a cryptocurrency doesn't mean Libra is! In fact, with the centralized consortium of companies, Libra stands for exactly the opposite of a cryptocurrency! There are scientific articles that define what constitutes a crypto currency and what does not, but these are simply ignored or dismissed as invalid and unimportant. Libra uses technologies that also use crypto currencies, BUT only because they use the same technology that doesn't mean they are the same. The heart of a ship is a diesel engine and yet a ship is not a car! Even the Wikipedia article on cryptocurrencies shows in the formal definition section that it cannot be a crypto currency. I'm sorry if I didn't follow formal things when editing, but it's a slap in the face for any real cryptocurrency with every second the libra is further referred to as such! --Taobsen (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This topic of trust, is now included in the lede and the body, as I agree it is a central aspect to describe what this proposal is. Widefox; talk 15:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

yep, that's good - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

David "trusted third party" seems the correct jargon to me, predating crypto, it's just about trust in a technical sphere, both of which we can't shy away from and is central to this. I note that the German wiki page currently is stating this isn't a cryptocurrency, so we need something including the word "trust" in the lede as a central aspect. Widefox; talk 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

your recent edits are good with me.

I'm not sure it's worth overstressing Libra's essential nature as "blockchain" or "cryptocurrency" as such - consider Ripple's XRP, which is centrally-controlled (and to which Libra has been compared), but is clearly inside the Venn diagram circle of "cryptocurrencies" and is traded in the same venues on the same terms - even the crypto market doesn't actually care about decentralisation nearly as much as the ideologues do. That the RSes are treating this as the same broad category of thing as Bitcoin, etc. is not in fact wrong in my opinion - insofar as we can say that about something that doesn't exist, of course.

(I have a piece out in an RS, hopefully tomorrow, on the theme that Libra may or may not be blockchain functionally, but it completely is in ideological aspirations - definitely the same category of thing in that sense. I'll leave it to others to decide if it's suitable here ...) - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the difference is already in the title Ripple (payment protocol). RS are calling it a cryptocurrency, but there's a lot of weight put on the trust/privacy issues, compounded by those already with the backer company. Widefox; talk 23:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

it seems that permissioned ledger and cryptocurrency are two interchangeable terms.. Seems the main issue for this article is we are writing about what appears to be vaporware. No more than one of the tokens that launch with a lot of PR on ethereum. Indeed it has plenty of RS to pass AfD, so for sure we should keep it. But arguing if the vaporware is a cryptocurrency or not seems to be putting the cart before the horse to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

One is a data structure, the other a currency, so no they're not synonyms. There's many RS which discuss the appropriateness of the term "cryptocurrency", but yes we have to be aware of #5. Widefox; talk 08:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My piece is up in Foreign Policy. I'll leave it to others to decide if it's usable as a source ... I can tell you that FP are painstaking and detailed in checking factual claims, e.g. the guy from Xapo admitting Libra's explicit intentions to set up a shadow bank. (Original audio, if a Spanish speaker wants to check context as well as translation.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not a cryptocurrency in the 'traditional' sense. The lede says virtual currency, but digital currency seems closer. If there is agreement the page should also be moved to Libra (virtual currency) or Libra (digital currency). Jonpatterns (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't anything at all as yet. So, do we have sufficient RSes questioning its "cryptocurrency" nature strongly enough? Discussing it on this talk page isn't sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As for the lede, I originally used "digital currency", which is the superset and doesn't exclude a fiat currency, then switched to "virtual currency" which seemed more specific [1] . Per David, the overwhelming majority of sources I've seen just call it a cryptocurrency. Gathering sources for the issue here may be a way forward. Widefox; talk 11:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting more sources will be useful. There are a couple of difficulties, these terms aren't well defined and how much weight to give technical and non-technical sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

I started a new subsection, "Privacy concerns". Another contributor downgraded it to be a subsection of the existing "Reception" subsection. Hmmm. Privacy is not merely a "reception" issue. It will be an ongoing issue so long as Libra is offered. This is one reason it should not be a third level section.

The article currently has no "Implementation" subsection. If could be argued that a sub-section concerned with privacy belonged under implementation, not reception. I see this as another argument to keep Privacy concerns as a 2nd level section. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan please see WP:CSECTION, where "Privacy" would be the topic, and "Privacy concerns" is less neutral. They are all opinions, so reception fits, especially as the sections are currently small, but I agree privacy warrants a separate heading, just not technically requiring a second this minute IMHO. (ps, it's the Libra Association not the Libra Foundation. [2] [3]) Widefox; talk 15:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reception from US/international regulators, but not from cryptocurrency industry itself?

Cryptocurrency is already a large business and I don't see much talk on this page about the response from those already heavily involved. What do the major cryptocurrency exchanges have to say? What about key developers/personalities? What do the people developing Bitcoin or Ethereum have to say? Siludin (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not much that's made it to mainstream RSes - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Visa earnings call a sufficient source to use?

A fact worth making clear - the latest Visa earnings call says there are no members of the Libra Association as yet:

Bryan C. Keane

Q

Analyst, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

Hi, guys. Good afternoon. Al, just wanted to ask on Facebook's Libra, there's some confusion in the market on how to think about that. Is it a strategic partner for Visa or potential disruptive threat? Just curious your thoughts and level of expected Visa involvement in Facebook Libra. Thanks.

Alfred F. Kelly, Jr

A

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Visa, Inc.

Bryan, the first thing I'd say I think it's important to understand the facts here and not any of us get out ahead of ourselves. So we have signed a nonbinding letter of intent to join Libra. We're one of – I think it's 27 companies that have expressed that interest. So no one has yet officially joined. We're in discussions and our ultimate decision to join will be determined by a number of factors, including obviously the ability of the association to satisfy all the requisite regulatory requirements. So, Bryan, in my estimation, it's really, really early days and there's just a tremendous amount to be finalized. But obviously, given that we've expressed interest, we actually believe we could be additive and helpful in the association.

This would be enough for "Visa stated" - usable in the article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting find. I would say this qualifies under usage per WP:PRIMARY. I think an earnings report definitely falls under "reputably published" given they need to be filed with the SEC, among other reasons. I guess the only thing is to use it "with care" especially given the crypto topic, but in this case, it seems to be a good clarifying information from the Visa CEO that would add value to the article. --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add citation at History section

It will be encyclopedic, at the end of the section, a clue about motivations:

A spokesperson for Mercado Pago said the company will re-evaluate Libra after there is “greater clarity” around the project,

--Krauss (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

60 seconds google "mercado pago" "libra" "greater clarity" turned up a fuller quote [4] - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Needs a serious update for Libra 2.0

Most of this is now historical. Still relevant - the old plan was discussed enough to be notable in itself - but now they've pretty much gutted that plan, and want to do something very much less drastic under the same name.

I'm finishing up my book on Libra! It's self-published, so yeah, don't use it directly ;-) but it's also very heavily referenced, and quite a few of the sources would pass muster as Wikipedia RSes. I totally don't have time myself, I have a book to get out - but there's an early draft here (grab it while you can!) if any editor is feeling particularly interested in cribbing from my bibliography - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've taken that link down, but I've put a copy up on a site well known to academics as a source - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Libra bitcoin

It was created by Amanda m. Baker 2603:6011:A3F0:8030:ADB6:292D:1257:174D (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

How Libra Was Killed

The former head of Libra/Diem project at Facebook, David A. Marcus, published a personal note on 29 November 2024 going public with the story of the building, years of regulatory compliance modifications, then the political killing of Libra/Diem from top US officials and the captured banking system. How Libra Was Killed, David Marcus, self-published on Twitter/X, 29 November 2024. With the change of US Presidential administration, and many others now "coming out" with stories of financial regulatory overreach (Operation Choke Point 2.0, etc.), he apparently feels the existing US powers have less ability to damage those who speak out.

As his essay is self-published, we won't use it to improve the article just yet, but we can expect multiple secondary source articles following more investigations/interviews will be covering the topic in the coming weeks. And this article should be improved! N2e (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)