Facebook's attempted entry into the digital currency market accelerated the inevitable: Congress and the financial regulators are more closely scrutinizing the entry of technology firms into the financial markets. What was not inevitable was Congressional overreaction. While it now seems universal practice to refer to Libra as a Stablecoin, it is not: it is an asset-backed coin (try ""). Because the managers of Libra would have had the ability to shift the assets supporting Libra, Libra is…

Isn't this the type of matter in which the DOJ should be involved? Why is generating trading commissions from a dying and incapacitated person any different than sneaking into his hospital room and stealing his watch and wallet?

If one makes the very reasonable assumption that it is impossible to be perfectly assured for an indefinite period that data can be made absolutely safe from bad actors or from internal carelessness, it follows that there is tremendous risk in centralizing so much data in one place. Even assuming that having all this data will materially improve the ability of the regulators to monitor the markets and protect investors - as is no doubt the case - is that benefit really worth the risk? If…

Libra is an asset-backed coin (an "ABCoin"), not a stablecoin. It is neither fixed in value as against the local fiat currency (meaning the dollar in the United States) nor fixed in value against a determinate basket of currencies (as Libra reserves the right to change the relevant basket). This distinction, or the failure to make this distinction, is very important because genuine stablecoins can provide all of the benefits that the CRS study posits could be provided by Libra, but can do…