A new cryptocurrency is in the pipeline. On paper, it would be a digital means of payment backed by an infrastructure, supposedly dispersed and distributed, which would come to be the blockchain, coded under the Apache Foundation’s free software license.
This particular implementation of blockchain would allow scaling billions of accounts requiring high transaction throughput, low latency and an efficient storage system. At the same time, there would be tolerance to technical dissent, based on the so-called Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT).
Diem, Facebook’s crypto
However, in this case there will not be different collections of blocks of nodes that form dispersed networks, but all the control of transactions will depend on a single infrastructure that acts as a “great supervisor” of transactions, proceeding to a very “harmonized” framework.
With this, as explained in their so-called whitepaper, we could get an idea of this project, which would become the Diem cryptocurrency, promoted by Facebook. Specifically, it is considered as the “new version” of the previous attempt known as Libra.
Now, what are the problems with this currency?
Blockchain’s counter-essence isn’t the only the problem
A conception similar to the famous client-server architecture (to some extent, in case it would serve for further abstraction and reading comprehension this simile with respect to one of the most relevant IT infrastructure organizations today) completely breaks with the idea of blockchains.
Blockchain networks not only arouse interest for their mere technical utilitarianism, but for that strength based on decentralization and dispersion, since it was not conceived to establish a “big brother” or “central server”, notwithstanding the fact that there are ledgers (ledgers).
But that’s not all. Being aware that Zuckerberg’s solutions (Facebook and Whatsapp) are very little respectful of freedom of expression and privacy, with which it should not be very welcome to add financial transactions with cryptos to the large volumes of data that we make them reality (with a digital wallet).
A currency made for the alliance between big government and big businesses?
Normally, when a cryptocurrency is planned to be launched on the market, a call for investments known as Initial Coin Offering (ICO) is considered, which will help to freely determine the value that the market wants to give to this medium of exchange to begin with.
Well, if in this case I cannot anticipate many details at the moment, I can say that I am struck by the fact that, from the outset, and not by way of surrender of assumption, there are large corporations allied (including globalist and ideologically revolutionary entities such as Women’s World Banking).
But that’s not all. According to the portal Coindesk, there was a lot of resistance to Facebook from “global regulators”. However, according to co-creator Christian Catalini, “there are reasons for optimism”. Specifically, he speaks of compromises with regulators and pretexts such as cybercrime and consumer protection.”
And now we come to the most impressive of all. Catalini himself has gone so far as to consider that the purpose of Diem would be merely transitory, hinting that the currency could cease to function when the U.S. Federal Reserve implements the digital dollar or another centrally controlled cryptocurrency.
In fact, it was already assumed weeks ago that, in view of this contribution from one of the most important Big Tech, around 80% of the central banks would be considering issuing and managing their own digital currencies (it would also allow the Chinese Communist Party to accelerate what is the reason for its “repeated crusade”).
He further boasts that “the public sector has a great comparative advantage in the development of anything to do with stability, money, value preservation and macroprudential policy”. Yes, you tell us, when the fractional reserve is a full-fledged speculative fraud (inflation, debt).
Therefore, in conclusion, I would reaffirm that, in my opinion, it is not worth trusting a cryptocurrency that “consciously misinterprets” the essence of the blockchain. Our bet on digital money is not simply for less physical paper, but a way in pursuit of monetary freedom, private property and privacy as such.