{"id":21704,"date":"2019-07-08T15:51:49","date_gmt":"2019-07-08T13:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/facebooks-libra-cryptocurrency-key-legal-considerations\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T15:05:25","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T13:05:25","slug":"facebooks-libra-cryptocurrency-key-legal-considerations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/facebooks-libra-cryptocurrency-key-legal-considerations\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook’s Libra Cryptocurrency: Key Legal Considerations"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Facebook’s Libra Cryptocurrency<\/h2>\n\n

On June 18, 2019, Facebook and 27 other organizations announced the creation of a new cryptocurrency called Libra<\/strong> and the Calibra<\/strong> platform; according to the EFE News Agency, this cryptocurrency could be used both for transactions between individuals and for purchases at retail establishments.<\/p>\n\n

To that end, the Libra Association<\/strong> was established, with its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, to oversee and develop the cryptocurrency. The promoters justified the choice of this location because Switzerland has a history of neutrality and global openness to blockchain technology, and because the association aspired to be an international and neutral institution. <\/p>\n\n

In addition to Facebook, the founding members included Visa<\/strong>, Mastercard<\/strong>, Vodafone<\/strong>, PayPal<\/strong>, eBay<\/strong>, Spotify<\/strong>, Uber<\/strong>, Lyft<\/strong>, Booking Holdings<\/strong>\u2014owner of Booking.com, Priceline.com, and Kayak.com\u2014and Mercado Libre<\/strong>, among other companies.<\/p>\n\n

Background on the 2019 Launch of Libra<\/h2>\n\n

The announcement of Libra<\/strong> came at a time of growing interest in cryptocurrencies, blockchain technology, and new digital payment systems. Until then, much of the public debate on cryptoassets had focused on currencies such as Bitcoin<\/strong>, their volatility, their potential use as an investment asset, and the challenges they posed for regulators, central banks, and tax authorities. <\/p>\n\n

Facebook’s proposal introduced a unique element: it was not merely a project driven by a tech community or a specialized financial firm, but rather an initiative linked to one of the world’s largest digital platforms, with the potential to reach millions of users through everyday apps.<\/p>\n\n

From a legal perspective, the project\u2019s initial appeal lay not only in the creation of a new cryptocurrency, but also in the potential emergence of a global, private, digital payment infrastructure promoted by major technology and financial companies.<\/p>\n\n

What Libra Was, According to the Initial Presentation<\/h2>\n\n

The stated goal was for Libra<\/strong> to function as a stable cryptocurrency that could be used for everyday transactions, with minimal fluctuations in value. To this end, the plan was to back it with a portfolio of real, low-volatility assets\u2014specifically, bank deposits and short-term government securities denominated in currencies issued by stable, reputable central banks. <\/p>\n\n

In fact, the so-called Libra Reserve<\/strong> was intended to act as a buyer of last resort, providing stability to the system and distinguishing the project from cryptocurrencies whose value depended primarily on supply, demand, and trading on secondary markets.<\/p>\n\n

Libra<\/strong> was based on blockchain technology. However, it could not be mined and, consequently, could not be produced by users in exchange for computing power. This feature set it apart from other decentralized cryptocurrencies in which the issuance of new units could be linked to mining processes. <\/p>\n\n

The Role of the Libra Association<\/h2>\n\n

The Libra Association<\/strong> presented itself as an independent organization responsible for overseeing the project’s progress, developing the network, and managing key aspects of the cryptocurrency’s operation. Its headquarters in Geneva reinforced the idea of an organization with an international and neutral focus. <\/p>\n\n

The fact that companies from the payments, telecommunications, e-commerce, transportation, music streaming, and digital platforms sectors were involved underscored the scope of the project. Libra was not conceived solely as a digital currency for Facebook users, but as a system capable of being integrated into a wide range of services and commercial environments. <\/p>\n\n

This design raised important legal questions regarding governance, liability, oversight, risk management, user protection, and relations with financial authorities in the various countries where the cryptocurrency might be used.<\/p>\n\n

What role would Calibra play?<\/h2>\n\n

A digital wallet for the cryptocurrency Libra<\/strong> would be offered, initially accessible through WhatsApp<\/strong> and Messenger<\/strong>\u2014both owned by Facebook\u2014although the plan was to expand it in the future to other services such as Instagram or the Facebook website itself.<\/p>\n\n

The wallet would also have its own standalone app for Android and iOS operating systems, with a planned launch in 2020 according to the project’s initial presentation.<\/p>\n\n

On the other hand, the Calibra<\/strong> platform would facilitate user interactions with Libra. Initially, it would offer basic functions for sending and receiving money, although other types of financial services were also planned for the future. <\/p>\n\n

From a legal standpoint, Calibra raised important issues regarding user identification, fraud prevention, data protection, transaction security, and potential liability toward users who used the digital wallet to transfer funds.<\/p>\n\n

Why Libra Was Positioned as a Stablecoin<\/h2>\n\n

One of the main differences between Libra<\/strong> and other cryptocurrencies was its goal of maintaining a more stable value. To achieve this, the project relied on the idea of a reserve composed of low-volatility assets, such as bank deposits and short-term government securities. <\/p>\n\n

This structure was intended to make Libra useful for everyday payments, rather than just for investment, speculation, or a store of value. In the initial plan, stability was essential so that individuals and businesses could use it as a means of payment without being exposed to sharp price fluctuations. <\/p>\n\n

However, that very pursuit of stability raised regulatory concerns from the outset, because the existence of a global cryptocurrency backed by financial assets could have implications for payment systems, financial supervision, and monetary policy.<\/p>\n\n

Key Differences from Other Cryptocurrencies Such as Bitcoin<\/h2>\n\n

In 2019, a common comparison was made between Libra<\/strong> and Bitcoin<\/strong>. Although both were related to blockchain technology, they differed significantly in their design and purpose. <\/p>\n\n

Bitcoin had developed as a decentralized cryptocurrency, with its issuance tied to mining and without a central entity equivalent to the Libra Association. Libra, by contrast, was presented as a cryptocurrency managed within an associative structure and backed by a reserve of assets. <\/p>\n\n

Their practical purposes also differed. While Bitcoin was often analyzed as a decentralized digital asset and investment vehicle, Libra was presented as a tool for everyday payments and peer-to-peer transfers, intended for widespread use within digital services. <\/p>\n\n

Key Initial Regulatory Concerns<\/h2>\n\n

Central banks had already expressed concern about Libra’s<\/strong> implications for the economy. In this regard, U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell stated that Libra would require very close scrutiny due to its enormous scope. <\/p>\n\n

The U.S. Congress, specifically the House Financial Services Committee, urged Facebook to put the project on hold until Congress could debate it. Undoubtedly, the lack of regulatory safeguards, coupled with concerns about security, privacy, and potential misuse, raised questions about the risks it could pose to the financial economy, monetary policy, and the government\u2019s control over it. <\/p>\n\n

Initial concerns centered on several areas: the potential concentration of power in large technology platforms, user protection, the processing of personal data, the prevention of money laundering, illicit financing, financial stability, and the ability of authorities to oversee a global payment network.<\/p>\n\n

Legal Significance of the Libra Project in 2019<\/h2>\n\n

The Libra<\/strong> project was of obvious legal interest in 2019 because it raised a novel issue: the possibility that a private network, driven by major technology and financial companies, could develop a global cryptocurrency for payments and transfers.<\/p>\n\n

The debate was not limited to whether or not Libra was just another cryptocurrency. The real legal question was how regulators should respond to a project that combined blockchain technology, digital payments, personal data, asset reserves, major technology platforms, and the potential for massive user adoption. <\/p>\n\n

From this perspective, Libra became an early example of the challenges that digital assets could pose when they ceased to be niche phenomena and became part of the business strategies of major international operators.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n