> I'm still uncertain whether the state should even have the ability to block these
My reading of ECB publications makes me believe that they don’t want to block these.
Ultimately, governments are mandated to protect the wealth of their electorate. A system in which they have no recourse, even indirectly, against volatility (the preservation of wealth) and stability (the preservation of payment services) is one that they must supersede.
SWIFT was forced to block transfers to Iran. Libra is like SWIFT, but with more control, as they also act as the RTGS (real-time gross settlement system).
Imagine if your country’s currency stopped working because it was added to sanctions lists. Or got increased fees.
A private company is ultimately subdued by the government of the countries it is incorporated in. They apply laws and executive orders against them. This kind of power asymmetry between countries is dangerous.
That's a good point. Besides the potential dangers of allowing a tech company (one with no ties to your country) to run the money supply, there is also the understanding that you (as a smaller country) are inviting even more U.S. monetary policy into your country.
My reading of ECB publications makes me believe that they don’t want to block these.
Ultimately, governments are mandated to protect the wealth of their electorate. A system in which they have no recourse, even indirectly, against volatility (the preservation of wealth) and stability (the preservation of payment services) is one that they must supersede.
SWIFT was forced to block transfers to Iran. Libra is like SWIFT, but with more control, as they also act as the RTGS (real-time gross settlement system).
Imagine if your country’s currency stopped working because it was added to sanctions lists. Or got increased fees.
A private company is ultimately subdued by the government of the countries it is incorporated in. They apply laws and executive orders against them. This kind of power asymmetry between countries is dangerous.