Libra: The Official Cryptocurrency of Facebook

In this article, we will examine Facebook’s Libra Cryptocurrency, its essence, its special features, the advantages and disadvantages, and the problems and prospects of this cryptocurrency. Is Libra the cryptocurrency of the future or a black mark for Facebook?

In 2018, Facebook announced that it would create a cryptocurrency platform, called Libra. In June 2019, the project was presented for the first time to the audience. Despite its relative transparency and interesting implementation of the idea, the project was not approved by regulators who saw in the first type of new cryptocurrency and blockchain a serious competition with the world bank and the financial system in general. Now, the issue is which of the members of the Libra Association will sign the statutes of the Association on 14 October, going against the regulators, and what the consequences will be.

By 2017, the cryptocurrency market was developing so fast that the world’s largest corporations were eager not to fall behind new technologies. In 2018, everything changed a lot, but those who had already begun to invest millions of dollars in the development of their own platforms simply could not go back. Firstly, blockchain data transfer technology was interesting for investment banks, which faced two paths: joining existing systems (for example, Ripple, be able to become an alternative to SWIFT) or develop your own cryptocurrency startup.

Citibank and JPMorgan chose the second form. It is true that the instability of the cryptocurrency market and the ambiguous attitude of the regulators forced them to slow down the pace of development a little and change to an attitude of waiting and seeing. However, Citibank eventually decided to abandon all of its cryptocurrency experiments, preferring SWIFT. The stable currency JPM Coin was ready to test in June 2019, but JPMorgan has yet to make any public announcement.

In the spring of 2018, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, made the world aware of the creation of a new cryptocurrency. Actually, it is an electronic payment system that has as a benefit instant messaging transactions from WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger in all countries where the social network is used. In theory, through this cryptocurrency, Facebook users will pay for various types of virtual purchases, which are now paid for with real money.

As the creators of the project say, the need to have created their own means of payment is due to the excessive volatility of cryptocurrencies in general, as well as that of fiduciary currencies. To ensure that the currency is not as volatile as traditional cryptos, Libra will be a stable currency backed by several currencies (including the US dollar and the euro).

Features of the Libra Cryptocurrency

-The Libra consensus algorithm suggests 100 validators in the initial stage, 66% of the votes are enough to make any changes in the network (similar to DpoS). It is suggested that validators be the largest participants in the network, and the number of validators may increase further in the future.

-Pound will be of less interest to speculators, as developers aim to maintain a stable exchange rate within social networks.

-It has been studied that the use of Libra within the network could increase the speed of transactions, much faster than the banking service and, in addition, would reduce the fees. We think that in the future different applications can be combined into one, in short, the public covered by this system will be more than 4 billion people in the world.

-The only wallet compatible with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger is Calibrate. To open an account we only need a smartphone, and it will not be necessary to open a bank account.

-The share of USD in the support of Libra exceeds 50%. The intention is that Libra is also backed by the euro, the pound sterling, the yen, and government values.

-Facebook publicly unveiled its Libra project in June 2019 and presented its technical documentation. The coin is ready for final release in 2020. Although the platform’s codebase was developed by Facebook programmers, the company is not willing to reserve the right to exclusive control. In addition, developers have assured that they will not run the project until regulators (especially Americans) are completely satisfied.

-According to the developers, Libra is basically not a common cryptocurrency. This is a means of payment within a social media network, which may fall into the category of goods.

Contentious Points Associated with the Platform

-Libra is not ready to compete with the banks, although this statement may be questioned.

-It is not clear whether people blocked on the Facebook network can use the Calibrate wallet for any or other reason (political opinions, incitement to conflict, etc.). Even if it is temporarily locked, a user cannot use the wallet.

-Companies from countries where Libra is prohibited will not be able to participate in the association or receive validation votes. Doesn’t seem like a good idea, but this problem has not yet been decided.

-It is not clear how votes will be allocated if one validation company buys from another. Theoretically, a company receives a vote. The new company will have 2 votes in the event of a merger (this is the potential danger of centralisation).

-The platform has not established any mechanism to combat changes that have not been authorized in the Libra protocol.

-And, obviously, the biggest problem is that it is not defined how Libra will be able to avoid transfers out of purses and exchanges that fall under the category of illegal operations (money laundering, terrorist financing, etc.).

Opposition to Libra

Members of the Libra Association will meet on October 14 in Geneva, Switzerland, to sign the statute. Originally, 28 companies were announced to participate in the partnership. Before the project is already official, they must integrate their own system into the platform and perform test transactions. The “entry fee” is unclear: Facebook asked each member to commit an initial $10 million to join the group, but the reality is that no company has transferred the money today. Moreover, it was currently not clear which member would sign the document.

On 4 October 2019, PayPal, a well-known digital payment platform, officially refused to participate in the Libra cryptocurrency project. Therefore, the company became the first of 28 previously announced Libra Association members, who refused to support the platform. Reasons for the decision were not made public. The company representatives just pointed out that PayPal intends to focus on its own trading priorities.

It is not well defined if other electronic payment systems such as Stripe, Visa, or Mastercard can participate in this association, as they also plan to withdraw from the agreement. One of the unidentified sources explained this position simply: payment systems do not need excessive control by regulators over their businesses, which will inevitably follow after public support for Libra fell out of favor. In short, payment systems chose not to go against the regulator.

After Facebook launched Libra in mid-June, regulators and central banks responded immediately:

  1. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said the central bank refuses to support the development of the Facebook Pound cryptocurrency in Europe because it endangers the monetary sovereignty of states. In his opinion, the danger is that Facebook has 2 billion users worldwide. Any failure in the network threatens financial problems.

Commentary: We have not defined the reason why other cryptocurrencies have never been accused of endangering the monetary sovereignty of states, and why BTC, being a stronger competitor, is not so much criticized.

  1. Germany went even further and adopted a blockchain strategy that prevents parallel coins from being issued in the country.

Commentary: It doesn’t seem easy to figure out how to implement this prohibition in reality, and how to ban cryptocurrency in general in the European legal framework.

  1. The European Commission began to investigate possible anti-competitive behaviour related to Libra. According to their representatives, the launch of Libra can lead to the creation of a completely separate economy, which will place those who do not use cryptocurrencies in a difficult position.

Commentary: It is surprising why this rhetoric has not been seen in relation to BTCs. Nor is it common for the European Commission to give its support to technically backward segments of the population, rather than promoting new technologies among people.

  1. The US Fed Advisory Council opposed Libra because Facebook would create a shadow banking system. US banks fear that Libra will reduce payment volumes in the banking system.

Commentary: The Council is made up of 12 presidents of the largest banks in the United States. It stands to reason that they are concerned about a slowdown in their business. But this is what is called competition, where the most technologically advanced systems displace the least developed. I wonder what exactly Libra provoked to have such strong criticism. This gives the reason for those who think that Facebook is a very strong competitor and others fear it.

  1. Most US congressmen think that Libra should apply for a banking license and be regulated by the US Financial Sector Advisory Council (FSAC). Their argument: the payment systems involved in the Libra project a close connection. And when no one expects it, the digital portfolio could start to present systemic risks along with large banks (alluding to the Libra Association audience).

Commentary: These concerns have some reasons. If a third of the world’s population starts using Libra, the attitude towards banks and fiduciary money can change. And the problem of managing risks becomes one of the key issues here. On the other hand, we have the information that the congressmen themselves claim to admit that cryptocurrencies and the blockchain have been completely integrated into everyday life during the 10 years of their operation. And breaking the future of technology makes no sense.

FINMA, the Swiss regulator, decided to support the platform. The country’s financial market supervision service believes that the project is being developed in a transparent manner and does not see any particular risk in digital currency, provided that it is developed in accordance with the relevant established rules. It is therefore reasonable that the Libra Association consortium should be registered in Switzerland.

There is a very clear algorithm in the actions of the SEC and all European regulators. Cryptocurrencies and regulators are like two opponents, and each is trying to cross a line in the defense of the enemy. Attempts to take control of token issuance, ban mining and ICOs, and restrict crypto-swap operation have ultimately had no effect. It is very difficult to have control of something that does not have a single focal point and has an intangible electronic form.

The cryptocurrency community actively promotes the idea of future bitcoin and ETF funds, which goes against the policy of the SEC. In turn, the SEC, trying to gain control of the situation, can do nothing against developers “private” and, therefore, confrontation with Libra is an ideal opportunity to show their power and avoid such attempts by global corporations in the future.

Imagine a community where people pose a potential danger. Civilians are easily controlled, while potentially dangerous people create their own clandestine organizations that cannot be controlled. However, these organizations do not yet present any particular danger, because the authorities sometimes establish an exemplary punishment so that the other cannot do the same, As long as the authorities catch one of those illegal organizations in the act. And this is not easy.

And on a certain occasion, a dissident leader, who is quite popular, tries to create a product that is unfavorable to the authorities. The authorities understand that if they do nothing, the rest can go their way, and then it will be even more difficult to maintain authority. So it is not important whether the product may appear to be a threat or, on the contrary, a benefit. It’s important to show who’s boss here, what happened in the confrontation between regulators and Facebook.

In other words, regulators have simply seized the opportunity to demonstrate their power by attempting to dismantle a great project that has been created by one of the world’s most powerful technology companies. And the score is one to zero for the regulators so far.

Why Libra and Similar Startups Have No Real Prospects

They have no proper place in the global financial system. The unstable position of cryptocurrencies is due to the fact that there is no legal framework or a clear system of regulation/control. If “private” developers can still market their product in a narrow circle of cryptocurrency enthusiasts, then large corporations interested in cryptocurrency are immediately put at risk. So far, according to the SEC, cryptocurrency is an asset to the shadow business, and there are still no prospects.

They do not provide sufficient return or return on investment. It is impossible to estimate the performance of the platform if there is more than a year before its launch. While 90% of new companies in the cryptocurrency market are currently in development, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of investments. “Private” developers at their risk perform ICO and expect to cover costs and earn money at the pre-sale and pump. Corporations cannot take that step, as their reputation would be at stake in this case.

Some economies are closed and lagging behind economically. First of all, it’s serious for China, which has its own messengers, so it’s unclear how Facebook could promote its product in China. Secondly, these are economically backward countries where there is no developed banking system or general knowledge of cryptocurrencies and electronic purses. In those countries, even smartphones are not common.

In attempting to capture exaggerations, Facebook, on the contrary, now has to follow the slow path of global cryptocurrency development, led by the SEC and European regulators. The corporation has not benefited from the early release of the product into the market. Many investors remember the 2018 scandals about leaked information, according to which Facebook, according to the policies of the FTC (the United States Federal Trade Commission) issued on July 24, 2019, must pay a record fine for social media of $5 billion. The refusal of payment systems to cooperate with the Libra platform could give a new blow to Facebook’s reputation.


It’s hard to blame Facebook for anything, but the situation is definitely not on the corporate side. One of Zuckerberg’s mistakes was that, with the aim of beating competitors, he offered the market a flawed and unfinished product without a clear development strategy and aligning all questions with regulators. And now, any of the big corporations will hardly want to follow their example and stand up to regulators. US and European regulators, on the other hand, took the opportunity to demonstrate their power and ruin the new project.

Another Facebook flaw was the focus on advertising and positioning itself as a leader. JPM Coin developers preferred to remain in the shadows. JPM Coin is only a tokenization trust, so the project will hardly be of interest to a wide range of financial institutions. In this way, developers avoided unnecessary advertising. Facebook, on the other hand, carried out its aggressive marketing policy, trying to get the support of major corporate investors. But he got opposition from the regulators instead.

Unfortunately, Libra is one of many examples of how remotely distant cryptocurrencies can be a complete financial instrument that investors and venture capital trust. Especially when political intrigue is in the foreground.

Crypto Daily Topic Cryptocurrencies

Bye Bye Libra, Hello Diem!

If you think Bitcoin had a controversial entry into the cryptocurrency scene, think Libra. Diem, previously Libra, hasn’t even entered the market, and it is already getting unpopular nicknames like Global coin and Facebook Coin. 

Names stick, and Diem is already in a sticky mess. This permission-based blockchain deservedly suffers an identity crisis because it packages centralized financial services as decentralized exchanges.

Initially, Libra was a blockchain-based payment system conceptualized for anonymity and decentralization. However, lawmakers in various developed nations like the UK, France, and the United States spoke against it. Some did so immediately after Facebook unveiled the Libra whitepaper.

Libra’s release was meant for 2020, but an aggressive push back from regulators in 2019 obscured the plans. Different entities fielded varying concerns addressing the Libra whitepaper, and the pressure pushed Facebook and its partners into drastic actions. Some partners left, leaving Libra with a looming identity crisis.

In this article, we discuss the rise and fall of the Libra Association. We are also looking into what Diem has to offer and how it’s evolved since conception. Stick around to learn the original Libra concept and why it rebranded to Diem to reduce Facebook stigma.

The Original Libra Concept

Facebook initiated and championed the formation of the Libra Association, and it always had a crypto tech in the works. The plan was to launch a stablecoin, which would be backed by a basket of national fiat currencies and securities.

The Libra stablecoin was designed to be more stable than any national currency, and Facebook would integrate it within its extensive social media coverage. Therefore, the cryptocurrency would be stabler than Bitcoin and enjoy undisputed, global utility. However, the grand scheme fell under siege the same day it was unveiled.

The Libra Association was to create new currency units on demand and retire units redeemed for fiat currency. It was also planning to reserve transactional data on the ledger for Libra Association members only.

Therefore, the blockchain technology wouldn’t be pure but a hybrid, centralized blockchain. The Libra Association reserved the distributed ledger’s reconciliation only to its service partners to prevent random data analysts from scrutinizing transactions.

Basically, Libra proposed a system where traditional blockchain transparency was obscured and reserved for its partners only. The pretext for shrouding the transparency was protecting customers’ privacy, but Mark Zuckerberg unsuccessfully tried convincing the Senate that Libra would honor users’ privacy.

Libra Couldn’t Address Trust and Privacy Issues

The Libra Association failed because of trying to appease both legislators and crypto purists. Revolutionary bitcoin users prefer permissionless cryptocurrencies, which transfer value in a decentralized fashion. Decentralized currencies can bypass regulatory enforcement.

Since Libra was not decentralized, it was to rely on trust, qualifying it as a ‘de facto central bank.’ The Libra Association and its network would be run by powerful corporations working in collaboration, and sovereign governments were concerned the Libra currency would cause widespread economic instability.  

Unlike Libra, Bitcoin is apolitical, and it doesn’t need the backing of fiat currency. Bitcoin is designed to withstand the regulatory scrutiny that seems to be putting down Libra, and the pure blockchain network is trusted worldwide for its anonymity.

Remember, nobody really knows who created Bitcoin.

Libra is not censorship-resistant, and Facebook is infamous for infringing on users’ privacy. This social media platform was subject to Senate and Judiciary inquiries, and it was scandalized for abusing the privacy rights of billions of users.

International Regulatory Resistance: Why Are Governments Fighting Libra?

The French Finance Minister was the first to raise concerns over Libra, just minutes after the whitepaper became public. France strongly opposed Libra becoming a sovereign currency, and the ministry cited privacy issues and consumer protectionism.

The English central Bank was a bit more accommodating, but it called for regulation of the proposed permission-based cryptocurrency. German lawmakers took a more cautious approach, distrusting the motives of the currency.

The European Union didn’t want Libra outcompeting European currencies, mainly because Facebook has a firm marketing grip globally.

American politicians were also quick to thwart efforts of rolling out the proposed Libra Network. The United States House Committee on Financial Services directed Facebook and its partners to stop developing Libra.

The Federal Reserve, the President, Congress, and the Senate had severe concerns regarding money laundering, economic stability, national security, and privacy & consumer protection. 

In response to the sharp criticisms and widespread distrust, Facebook promised to halt Libra until regulators felt comfortable. C.E.O Zuckerberg also promised Libra wouldn’t bypass US regulators by launching in other nations.

Facebook’s lousy rapport with regulators over privacy and consumer protection took a toll on Libra. US regulators petitioned Libra partners to explain how the currency would safeguard national security, and the following partners consequently abandoned Libra:

  • PayPal
  • Visa
  • MasterCard
  • Mercado Pago
  • Booking Holdings
  • eBay
  • Stripe

Libra received overwhelming lousy press, and it acquired negative connotations such as:

  • Facebook coin: Libra partners were afraid they’d be considered complacent in privacy violations.
  • Global coin: Governments were afraid Libra would overtake national currencies with FB’s robust marketing capacity, undermining national security.

Libra Rebranding to Diem: the Fundamental Changes

Facebook had to address structural and branding issues with Libra. The designers of this digital currency made critical changes to attract regulatory approval. The most fundamental of all changes was liberating the cryptocurrency from Facebook.

Facebook and the Libra Association announced Libra would rebrand to Diem, and the currency would not compete with fiat currencies. Instead, Diem would only complement the dollar, and it would also abandon the strategy of stabilizing behind a basket of various national currencies.

Facebook first renamed its blockchain subsidiary to Novi from Calibra. Novi is Greek for ‘new way.’

Diem was also meant to give this digital currency the connotation of transparency. Diem is Greek for the word ‘day,’ and the network promises the transparency of daylight. If only it can earn the trust of governments and safeguard the privacy of users.

Apart from repairing brand image, the Libra Association had to rebrand because of trademark disputes with other international firms. Finco sued the Libra Association in a New York court for using its registered logo trademark, and the company claimed monetary damages from the Libra Association.

Four European companies also petitioned against the Libra trademark, arguing Libra was a current form of their verbal brands.

Parting Shot

This hybrid cryptocurrency is controversial because of its hybrid nature, but mainly due to Facebook’s robust marketing reach. Diem will likely revolutionize crypto assets significantly because of its permission-based blockchain. That’s why you should understand this proposed fintech.

Diem will only be backed by the dollar. It will offer widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies. This currency will combine the transparency and security of blockchains, and users can make secure global transactions.

This proposed digital has significant potential, and you should share your thoughts in the comments section. Do you have any concerns that the Diem Association needs to address? Let’s discuss.

Crypto Videos

Facebook’s Libra Reportedly Launching in Jan 2021 as a USD Stablecoin!

Facebook’s Libra Reportedly Launching in Jan 2021 as a USD Stablecoin

According to a new report, the very controversial and long-awaited digital currency Libra could see the light of day as soon as Jan 2021. After more than a year of scrutiny from global financial regulators, Facebook’s Libra will launch in the form of a US dollar-backed digital currency, as Financial Times reported on Nov 27.

The Financial Times cited three people involved in the Libra project, as they stated that Libra Association’s plans would eventually add more fiat currencies to the digital currency’s basket of assets.

While the exact launch date is still unknown, January 2021 has been brought up several times as the most likely option. However, the launch date would ultimately depend on when the Libra Association receives regulatory approval from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority to operate as a payments service.

A FINMA spokesperson declined to make any statements or comments regarding Libra’s potential launch in January 2021. Instead, the representative referred to Libra’s announcement on its licensing process, stating, “In accordance with its practice, FINMA will not provide any public information on the status of the current and ongoing procedure, nor speculate on when it may reach completion.”

Initiated in Jun 2019, the Libra Association faced quite a bit of regulatory scrutiny, which caused a number of member companies such as PayPal and MasterCard to subsequently back out from the project. The basket of currencies that was originally supposed to back Libra included several fiat currencies, including the US dollar, euro, the Japanese yen, the British pound, as well as the Singapore dollar.

According to the Financial Times’ report, several Libra members believe that the appointment of HSBC legal chief Stuart Levey as CEO was a turning point for the Libra project.


Most Important Cryptocurrencies Apart From Bitcoin Part 2

1. Tether (USDT)

Tether was one of the pioneers of a new class of cryptocurrency known as stablecoins. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies that avoid the legendary volatility of cryptocurrencies by being pegged to real-life assets. The cryptocurrency industry, including Bitcoin itself, is known for unpredictable price swings that can wash out gains in a matter of hours. This volatility is also the reason why cryptocurrencies have been slow at real-life adoption since users fear making losses. Stablecoins such as Tether exists to provide cryptocurrency users with both security and speed of cryptocurrencies with the stability of Fiat currency. 

Launched in 2014 by Tether Holdings, the project describes itself as a “blockchain-enabled platform designed to facilitate the use of Fiat currencies in a digital manner.” What this means is that Tether users also get to sidestep the complexity sometimes associated with crypto. As of July 18, 2020, Tether’s per-token value is $0. 997473, with a market cap of 9.2 billion. It currently occupies the third spot right after Bitcoin and Ethereum.

2. Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Created in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash is one of the most recognizable altcoins. This is because it was born of a contentious hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain. At that time, the Bitcoin community was split into two. One faction was against the idea of splitting the chain, while the other argued that for Bitcoin to reach its potential, it had to be able to process more transactions at each time.

Be that as it may, it’s one of the most successful forks of the dominant currency. The source of that success is probably the currency’s compelling offering of a much faster Bitcoin network. This it does by increasing the size of blocks, and as a result, a number of transactions each can hold. 

Satoshi Nakamoto intended Bitcoin to be a peer-to-peer electronic currency that could be used for day-to-day purchases. However, as the coin gained mainstream traction, so did transactions increase on the network, and the network slowed down due to the limited 1MB block size. The block limitation meant that one block could only handle a limited number of transactions, causing transactions to queue up and clog the network. 

Bitcoin Cash’s solution was to increase the block size to 8 MB, thus permitting more transactions to be held in one block. While one block on Bitcoin can hold between 1000 and 1500 transactions, one block on Bitcoin Cash can handle tens of thousands. As of July 2018, BCH’s price was $225.36. It occupied the 5th position in the market with a market cap of 4.2 billion.

3. Libra (LIBRA)

The decision to add Libra to this list can certainly raise eyebrows but bear with us. Important here can mean the scale and magnitude of a cryptocurrency’s potential disruption or simply the power of the outfit behind it. And going by those two yardsticks, Libra is, to put it mildly, important. 

The currency is set to be launched by Facebook. When Facebook broke out the news last year, it said the currency would launch in 2020, but at the time writing, we’re yet to see that happen. 

As would be expected, the news was met with mixed reactions. Some people were excited about the potential of a powerful entity such as Facebook, helping to push the concept of crypto into the mainstream. Others, especially regulators, met the news with indignation. The reason for this was twofold. 

One was Facebook’s unflattering history with how it has dealt with users’ data and privacy. Regulators submitted that Facebook would sell user data to advertisers, and then we’d have a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica debacle. The other reason was due to Facebook’s massive worldwide reach – we’re talking about billions of users – which regulators argued would undermine the global financial system. 

The reason for the cryptocurrency’s launch delay is probably its going back to the drawing board to create a cryptocurrency that can appease regulators. In July last year, David Marcus, the project’s head, in remarks prepared for US lawmakers said that Libra would be “the broadest, most expensive, and most careful pre-launch oversight by regulators and central banks in fintech’s history,” and that Facebook wouldn’t launch the crypto until it had “fully addressed regulatory concerns.” Upon launch, the project will be overseen by Switzerland-based Facebook’s subsidiary, Calibra.

4. Monero (XMR)

Monero is one of the cryptocurrencies that have been created to make up for Bitcoin’s less than satisfactory privacy approach. While the Bitcoin blockchain does not reveal a user’s identity, all its transaction history is out there for the whole world to see. With enough resources and dedication, an entity can trace down the real-life owner of a transaction. 

Created as a fork of Bytecoin in April of 2014, Monero is a privacy-oriented cryptocurrency whose development was completely donation-dependent and driven solely by the community. It utilizes “ring signatures” to anonymize transactions. A ring signature is a cryptographic signature in which several signatures are merged together, with all of them appearing valid, while in actuality, only one is. This makes it impossible to single out the real signature.

This level of privacy for Monero has caused it to become the go-to currency for clandestine dealings and criminal activities. No matter the reputation it has acquired, though, Monero has enormously contributed to the crypto space in its offerings. So, let’s see how Monero is doing in the market. At the time of writing, Monero has a per-token value of $68.63, with a market rank of #15 and a market cap of $2.1 billion.

5. Cardano (ADA)

Created by Charles Hoskinson and launched in September 2017, Cardano is a cryptocurrency platform on which people can send and receive value in a decentralized, peer-to-peer, and safe manner. Through this, Cardano wants to make the world “work better for all.” The cryptocurrency has been nicknamed the Ethereum killer, and given its rapid rise to the coveted top 10, it wouldn’t be a surprise if this prophecy came true in a few years.

Cardano has taken a unique and intriguing approach to its development process. Apart from being originally peer-reviewed by blockchain experts, academics, and researchers from various universities, protocol updates have to undergo the same round of evaluation by experts. Cardano’s rationale for this rigorous process is to ensure that the platform meets the highest standards for security, scalability, and efficiency, ultimately granting users a quality experience. 

Cardano is one among many third-generation cryptocurrencies, which is a term used to describe cryptocurrencies that seek to improve upon the deficiencies of the first generation (Bitcoin) and second-generation blockchains (Ethereum). As of July 19, 2020, Cardano has a per-token value of $.0123970 and is the sixth-largest cryptocurrency with a market cap of 3.2 billion.

6. EOS (EOS)

EOS is one interesting cryptocurrency in part because no one knows what ‘EOS’ stands for and because it rose to the high sanctums of cryptocurrency riding on a wildly successful ICO that raised $4 billion. The crypto was created by Dan Larimer, who is also the founder and co-founder of successful crypto projects BitShares and Steemit, respectively.

Just like Ethereum, EOS seeks to provide a platform for developers to create decentralized applications. Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum that use the power-hungry proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, EOS uses a delegated proof-of-stake mechanism that is not only energy-efficient but also allows it to achieve an impressive TPS (transactions per second) capability of 1000+. As of July 19, 2019, EOS traded at $2.50 had a market cap of $2.3 billion that positioned it at #12 in the market. 

Crypto Videos

UC Berkeley Professor Say Libra Will Never See The Light Of Day!

UC Berkeley Professor: “Libra Will Never See The Light Of Day”

Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian, and UC Berkeley professor, argues that Facebook’s Libra stablecoin faces way too many “insoluble” problems, as well as too much resistance from governments, to ever properly launch.
“Libra is certainly an interesting idea, but it will never see the light of day,” Eichengreen said. He also asserts that the stablecoin sector as a whole is largely ignorant of monetary economics and history.

After talking to a lot of stablecoin founders, he concluded that they all knew everything about blockchain, but not much about monetary economics.

“Stablecoins are either fragile in terms that they are prone to attacks and collapse, which happens if they are only partially backed, or they are expensive to scale-up if they are fully or over-collateralized.”

Stablecoin advocates are naïve

While many analysts believe in Libra’s potential to disrupt the existing financial system, Barry Eichengreen disagrees and points out that Facebook’s stablecoin remains plagued by many “insoluble” challenges, even after the second whitepaper this year was published.
There are concerns that Libra will be used to “undermine the effectiveness of national monetary policies,” both in emerging and developed states.
Libra’s planned over-collateralization leads the scholar to predict that the excess backing will have to be provided by transaction fees. However, as high fees drive adoption away, Eichengreen predicts that the fees might be kept low, raising questions about how the capital buffer will be provided.

A Libra central bank?

The economist also pointed out that “Libra is going to need a central bank if the markets around it want to be stable. However, there is almost no chance that national governments are going to just let Facebook create a privately-owned and operated central bank.

Crypto Daily Topic

How Does Libra Differ From Blockchain? 

Facebook garnered tremendous attention in 2019 when it announced that it was creating a cryptocurrency called Libra. The announcement was met with the coldest of shoulders by regulators around the world, with declarations going from Libra “must be stopped” to the project was “serving private interests.”

The project drew ire partly due to the very audacious nature of the project plus the tainted history of Facebook with managing user data. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was forced to sit through US Senate hearings to explain the project, and many of the initial members withdrew from the project.

Libra and Bitcoin

Of course, any cryptocurrency that launches will unfailingly be compared against the one that started it all: Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the currency that spawned off the rest of the cryptocurrencies, and these cryptocurrencies have taken after Bitcoin one way or another. Whether it’s a permissionless blockchain, or a proof-of-work consensus mechanism, or a capped supply, Bitcoin has inspired the ton of them. 

What about Libra? With the controversy and the biting controversy surrounding the cryptocurrency, it’s crucial to compare the two. It’s also important since some people tend to lump the two together. 

Bitcoin and Libra: A Sea of Difference

Is  Libra like Bitcoin? Let’s stack each against the other and find out. 

i) Availability and History

Bitcoin traces its history to  2008 when the anonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto published its white paper. The first bitcoin was subsequently mined in January 2009. Bitcoin is now a fully-fledged currency through which millions of people all over the world can buy, sell, and trade on multiple exchanges. Though not yet fully mainstream, a good number of merchants and businesses the world over are accepting Bitcoin for payments. 

Libra’s white paper was released in 2019, with the cryptocurrency scheduled to go live sometimes in 2020. We’re yet to see the network that will support the currency, and with multiple founding partners jumping ship, whether the currency will be launched per the scheduled time is anyone’s guess. 

ii) Developers

In terms of development, Facebook is the team behind Libra. After the Libra project went public, the Libra blockchain was made open-source, allowing developers around the world to contribute to the code. 

For its part, Bitcoin was conceived and developed by Satoshi, with other developers joining in at later stages of the process. Bitcoin is now in the hands of the Bitcoin Foundation, and it’s also open-source, meaning anyone can add to the code. At any time, developers are always working to improve Bitcoin’s functions one way or another, whether improving scalability, privacy, interoperability with other blockchains, and so on.

iii) Centralization and Decentralization

One of Bitcoin’s core features is that it’s decentralized,  meaning it’s not managed by any single entity. No one can switch its network, hijack transactions, or block its usage. It achieves this thanks to having a distributed network of thousands of computers, also called nodes, all over the world. 

All anyone needs to do to become a node has enough storage on the computer to store the ever-increasing size of the blockchain, as well as reliable access to the internet. For anyone to hijack the Bitcoin blockchain, they would need massive computing power, which would simply be expensive for anyone to have the motivation to do so. 

On the other hand, Libra is fairly centralized. The project is run by the Libra Association, which comprises several organizations drawn from various industries: blockchain, venture capital, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and so on. These organizations have a financial stake in the project, and they will have a say in the development and the general direction of the project. Each member has contributed $19 million, and they get the right to vote on the decision-making process. 

iv) Pricing and Value

When Libra was originally unveiled, the plan was to create a stablecoin backed by a basket of fiat currencies such as the US dollar, the Euro, the Japanese Yen, and so on. That, however, was met with criticism by regulators and central banks who cried foul of the potential of that to usurp some of the power of the financial system. 

Now it looks like Libra has come back with a plan to appease the system. It will now comprise individual stablecoins for a number of Fiat currencies, – including USD, the Euro, the Singaporean dollar, the Japanese Yen, and its very own Libra coin, which will be backed by the stablecoins instead of Fiat currency. 

In comparison, Bitcoin is not backed by any currency. It derives its value from people accepting it and being willing to pay a certain amount of money for it. In the same way in history, people agreed that things like shells or rare stones have value and can be used as a medium of exchange, the same way people ascribe value to Bitcoin. 

v) Privacy

Bitcoin is a pseudonymous currency, meaning while you’ll not use your personal credentials to conduct transactions, your Bitcoin address and transaction history can be used to trace your real-world identity. Bitcoin’s blockchain is public, with every single transaction being in the public domain. 

While Libra is yet to go live and its privacy policy is not yet known, many people have rightfully raised questions on whether the project can protect user privacy, given Facebook’s history with the mishandling of user data. Concerns abound on whether Facebook could leverage its position and use people’s data as a means to further revenue. 

vi) Regulation

Bitcoin’s decentralized nature cushions it a great deal from the potential clampdown of governments. Governments could make trading and investment of Bitcoin difficult, but with its nodes being distributed all over the world, it’s just not possible to regulate it as effectively or stop its usage. 

On the other hand, Libra raised alarm bells from regulators and governments immediately it was announced. Concern was rife that with a powerful entity such as Facebook backing Libra, it would undermine the global financial system and provide bigger leeway for criminals and terrorist organizations. 

Libra even had to capitulate to the regulatory pressure. In a testimony prepared for a hearing at the US Senate, David Marcus, head of the project, wrote:” The time between now and launch is designed to be an open process subject to oversight and review…And I want to be clear: Facebook will not offer the Libra Digital currency until we have fully addressed regulatory concerns and received appropriate approvals.”

As you can deduct, Libra is highly prone to regulatory control. If governments and regulatory bodies don’t like what’s happening, they can intervene and demand a change of policy or approach. This could never happen with Bitcoin. 

vii) Coin Distribution

Bitcoin’s supply is capped at 21 million, meaning there will only ever be that amount of coins in existence. This number is programmed in the Bitcoin code, with the last coin expected to be mined around the year 2140.  This prevents inflation and also increases the purchasing power of Bitcoin over time. By contrast, the supply of Libra is in the hands of the Libra association, who will be in charge of the currency’s supply. 

As you can see, Libra and Bitcoin are two different cryptocurrencies with different approaches. In all the ways, Bitcoin is the embodiment of what cryptocurrency is about: a decentralized, open-source network, hard-to-regulate currency. Libra has the makings of a cryptocurrency, but not quite. Its association with Facebook is not helping its cause for the moment, but as with anything crypto, a lot remains to be seen. 

Crypto Daily Topic

Will Crypto Become the Next Global Reserve Currency? 

It is estimated that more than 60% of all U.S. dollars are used out of the United States of America. This signifies the dollar’s dominance as the preferred global currency; a position it has held for close to 76 years. It’s dominance can be traced back to the Bretton Woods Conference in 1994, where the participating countries agreed to link their native currency to the U.S. dollar, making it a global reserve currency. 

Even though the agreement was later disbanded after 37 years, the U.S. dollar has continued to strengthen its place as the most resilient currency. But, judging from the world’s economic history, the average lifespan of a global reserve currency over the past five centuries is about 95 years. So, there is the thought that the U.S. dollar is close to its “deadline”. 

Threats to The U.S. Dollar Maintaining its Status as a World Reserve Currency

In addition to the possibility of losing its grip on the global economy, there are other factors that are likely to dethrone the U.S. dollar from its position as a reserve currency.

For starters, the U.S. is facing economic threats from countries such as China and India, which boast high purchasing power parity. More so, the recent trade war between China and the U.S. has the potential to adversely devalue the dollar if the war was to continue long enough. 

Also, with the advent of the internet, much of the world’s economic activities are carried out online. Think of the growing number of e-commerce sites and numerous electronic payment transfers. The rise of the digital age, therefore, necessitates the need for a newer form of global currency to keep up with the dynamic technology. 

In addition, the dollar’s value is no longer pegged to gold, as was the case after the Bretton Woods Conference. President Nixon’s administration created the current system where the dollar leans towards the price of oil. Although it may seem far-fetched, oil-producing countries can potentially stop selling their oil for U.S. dollars sometime in the future; as the world adopts electric cars. As a result, the dollar’s dominance in global trade would diminish.

Given the growing doubts and uncertainty surrounding the U.S. dollar, it’s easy to see why Bitcoin or any other crypto seems to be well poised to become the next global reserve currency. 

Cryptocurrency as a World Reserve Currency

Cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin, would make a good reserve currency due to the following favorable factors; 

i) Decentralized 

Bitcoin isn’t governed by monetary policies as those regulating fiat currency. While it’s decentralized nature comes with several benefits, the most significant one is that it’s almost impossible to inflate the digital currency.

See, in times of economic crisis such as the great recession of 2008, the government prints and injects new monetary bills into the economy. While this is meant to support the falling economy, it leads to hyperinflation. 

On the other hand, Bitcoin is hard-capped at 21 million. This means that it’s impossible for new Bitcoins to be created and injected into the supply once the 21-million limit is mined. So, even in times of economic recession, Bitcoin’s value will always be on an increasing trajectory as its supply decreases while the demand increases. 

Additionally, in today’s global conflict for power between nations, the next reserve currency would ideally not have ties to any authority. 

ii) Ease of Accessibility 

The current global monetary system hasn’t been successful at achieving complete financial inclusion. There is still a large population of unbanked and under-banked population. 

With the birth of international economic cooperation and interoperability, thanks to digitalization, it’s clear that the conventional monetary system isn’t suited to support this cooperation. 

However, Bitcoin and other digital currencies are internet-based, making them viable for supporting economic interoperability. This way, it is possible to achieve complete financial inclusion considering the growing internet penetration even in remote areas. 

iii) Affordable 

Cryptocurrencies may not handle as many transactions as those processed by electronic fiat currency transfers. But when considering the total cost of money transfer, digital currencies are more affordable due to the absence of intermediaries. In most jurisdictions, virtual currencies are tax-free, which further brings down the transactional costs. 

While Bitcoin is on its path to unseating the dollar as a reserve currency, the process would be much faster if the coin can find some stability. It’s volatile nature undermines its use as a medium of exchange – which is a primary characteristic of a global reserve currency. It’s volatility has also contributed to the stigma around storing value in digital currencies. It gets even worse when you factor in the possibility of hard-forking, which often disrupts the prices. 

Setting the Table for a Digital Reserve Currency 

Well, Bitcoin may fail to become the next global reserve currency. But that doesn’t mean digital currencies have no chance of unseating the U.S. dollar and becoming a reserve currency.  

Take Facebook’s Libra digital coin, for example. The coin is modeled to become a global medium of exchange, with its value pegged on the dollar. This places Libra on the path to becoming a global reserve due to its stable value and usability as a means of settlement. Unfortunately, Libra faces severe backlash from the government due to strong distrust of corporations with global ambitions. Facebook Inc. itself hasn’t been in the government’s good books either, rendering Libra’s future uncertain.

However, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that Facebook’s approach to the digital currency space served as a wake-up call for the central banking community across the world. In fact, countries such as China and Japan are working towards digitizing their native currency, placing them closer to controlling the global economy. The European countries are also investigating the viability of digital currencies in an attempt to step up the payment systems. 


The next few decades promise to be exciting as far as the global economy and a reserve currency are concerned. Whether Bitcoin, Libra, or a central bank-issued digital currency end up winning the reserve-currency title, the crypto-market will have attained the long-awaited maturation. Besides, the success of one digital currency often translates to the success of other cryptocurrencies since they all exist in an ecosystem.