This is a gross mischaracterization of what Libra is. Libra is a token that's backed 1 to 1 on some basket of currencies and mostly government bonds. The Libra foundation makes money by taking a portion of the investment return to fund themselves, much like a brokerage takes a bit of the return when they invest your cash account. Thats it.
[edit] The idea of a bank holding 1 to 1 reserves is called narrow banking.
> It’s a “narrow banking” model that would back its deposits with 100 percent reserves, located at what is deemed by nearly everyone as the safest of safe locations —the U.S. central bank
Ironically the US Federal Reserve tried to stop the creation of a narrow bank because it would undermine fractional reserve banks.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-fed-wants-to-veto-sta...
> By fully backing each coin with a set of stable and liquid assets (described later) and by working with a competitive group of exchanges and other liquidity providers, users can have confidence that they will be able to sell any Libra coin at or close to the value of the reserve at any time. [0]
They'll fund expenses from the return of the investments.
> How will the reserve be invested? Users of Libra do not receive a return from the reserve. The reserve will be invested in low-risk assets that will yield interest over time. The revenue from this interest will first go to support the operating expenses of the association — to fund investments in the growth and development of the ecosystem, grants to nonprofit and multilateral organizations, engineering research, etc. [0]
Brokerages do this as well and earn most of their money this way (people keep cash in brokerage account and brokerage invests and earns interest).
> 57% of Schwab’s revenues are from net interest. The firm could literally give away every other service; discount the mutual fund fees to zero, do away with commissions, etc etc, and they would still be profitable. [1]
[0] https://libra.org/en-US/about-currency-reserve/#the_reserve
[1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...
But even assuming it was a full reserve, I don't think its fundamentally different enough to be allowed to skirt the existing laws.
It's different enough from banks because its matched one for one with some asset. It's essentially a passthrough investment. The reason banks are so highly regulated is that they participate in fractional reserve banking where they take in deposits and invest in highly risky assets. That and deposits are guaranteed by FDIC or similar agencies.
Should Starbucks be regulated as a bank because they let you prepay for a cup of coffee?
Except it's not. Well, maybe it is "generally", but fractional reserves in particular are, by definition, central bank money, and only central bank money. So, strictly speaking, cash or central bank deposits. Not bonds, not loans, not equity. Only central bank money.
> It's different enough from banks because its matched one for one with some asset.
In other words: It is exactly like a bank. Every loan any bank ever makes is matched with some asset, if it weren't, they'd be called gifts and not loans.
> The reason banks are so highly regulated is that they participate in fractional reserve banking where they take in deposits and invest in highly risky assets.
That doesn't even make sense. How would the fact that a bank has (supposedly) lower reserve requirements mean that "regulation" is required more? The whole point of regulation and oversight is to make sure that the minimum reserve is there, not that there isn't too much reserve, and if a bank supposedly had a 100% reserve requirement (because that is what they promise their customers, say), that would , if anything, make it even more important to check that that is actually true.
The whole reason why all of that regulation and oversight exists is not because banks have promised their customers too little, but because banks over and over and over told their customers one thing, but actually did something completely different, and ususally that means something a lot more risky.
The fact that Facebook promises to do something really good is exactly zero reason to do away with mechanisms that exist to make sure that promises are held.
This was true 200 years ago not anymore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Credit_theory...
Only 3% need to be matched IIRC
> When a bank issues a loan of $1000 to a customer, they debit the customer's loan account with $1000 and at the same time they credit the customer's deposit account with $1000, ready for using. The bank now has a new asset of $1000 and a new liability of $1000.
So ... do you have a source that supports your claim rather than mine?
Well this might just be where we simply disagree but I would say yes. Those Starbucks cards are often used as a way to launder money from country to country. You can't transfer balances from one individual to another as far as I'm aware so it's not nearly as problematic, though.
In Germany, you might actually need a permit from the financial regulation (BaFin) if you offer gift or prepaid cards, at least if you store the value online (and maybe some other conditions).
Yes. Including how the funds in the pre-paid card are managed and invested, and certainly including all the rules about when the user is allowed to reclaim their money.
If I were a country's finance minister, this single paragraph would be enough to get me to say "no".
This currency generates returns, which we don't see, and we don't control the allocation of. basically, it's slowly bleeding money out of the countries that use it, though accumulation of capital and capital investing.
That's... misleading? When you put 1 Euro into the bank, it allows them to hand out credits (promises) of 20 Euro. They don't just loan out what you paid in. They create their own money.
Let's say I'm a country, say, not the U.S. Could you see me having a problem with having my currency backed by a U.S. corporation, who's reserves are held in the U.S. central bank?
Yet in its short lifetime, Facebook has been able to prove itself very untrustworthy towards consumers.
It's not too big to trust, it's just untrustworthy. The fact that it's also big, makes trusting it an even worse idea.
no, they don't.
still need an internet connection and two person with a libra account.
Anyway, you can do the same thing with paypal...
And that architecture is decided by the Libra foundation, therefore they control currency.
The relevant law (art. 3 WZG[0]) requires persons to accept all banknotes (and up to 100 coins per transaction) as payment, but this only applies after a contract has been formed. It's perfectly legal for any store to indicate to customers that it will not accept large-denomination notes or cards[1]. If the customer is not willing or capable to pay using the accepted means of payment, no contract is formed, and the chewing gum remains with the store.
[0] https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19994336/...
[1] https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/kassensturz-espresso/geschaefte...
My personal legal asessment: If you were to form a contravt for purchase of goods and stipulated ahead of time that payment will be made in small bills (or electronic payments only), receiving payment with 1000.- bills would give the right to demand compensation related to handling large bills (security, verification etc.) due to the contractual breach, but it would not allow you to deny the money and demand payment as contracted.
They will break this promise to maximise profits, and there is sod-all you can do about it.
I'm not super on top of a lot of the details here, but I thought Libra was like a currency. What investment return?
The users do not.
If the user gets no additional returns, then it's just a fee, no?
The users get the stablecoin and are resigned to only possibly trying to speculate on foreign exchange rate changes, which are entirely inferior to the other opportunities such that it shouldn't even be considered. Users only have the opportunity to be users.
Probably time to read the white paper again if you really want to have a more nuanced discussion.