Call it a “cryptocurrency” if that makes it sound sexy, but this is still centralized — it’s effectively the same as the (already existing) Messenger Payments.
You’re welcome.
Open source makes sense for companies because they want to share the collective engineering efforts - because often times the code itself isn't the thing being monetized directly. In the case of Facebook it's not the code that is worth billions it's the data they horde. In the context of a blockchain that would mean sharing that data with everyone instead of hording it and acting as a middle-man for advertising, which is very much against the business interests of Facebook or any company with that model.
The other reason for such things is talent. If you want to attract top talent you have to (R&B) toys for them to play with. On the other hand, to say, "We'll never release this so let's not put any effort into it" is the road to irrelevance.
The budget for this effort vs the cost of irrelevance make such project a solid investment. Pointless in terms of product but essential to the brand.
I didn't think that was the case. It may be more in the spirit of crypto but I don't think it's a hard requirement?
Aside from both using cryptography, in the sense, of encryption.
So... if such buzz words are used, it seems like a huge lie.
That being said a cryptocurrency does not have to be decentralised.
However it is very important to understand the difference.
Today even decentralised cyptocurrencies depend on centralised-exchanges, and the consequence is that despite the constraints built into a blockchain algorithm are able to sell unlimited amount of the crypto to users without actually being in possession of the algorithm-limited crypto.
Tbh, to me it sounds scary instead