Cryptocurrencies

A Tale of Two Tech CEOs: How Zuckerberg and Dorsey Differ with Cryptocurrency

Twitter CEO's connection to Bitcoin-friendly tools suggests more commitment to privacy than Facebook's Libra proposal.

|

It would take a lot to make the technology and cryptocurrency press feel bad for Mark Zuckerberg. Last month's brutal House grilling of the infamous Facebook CEO seemed to do the trick.

It was easier than many might have thought to pity the Libra project's unintended figurehead as he was called to personally account for the ills of racial inequality, online crime, and foreign conflict—as if he personally willed these devils into the world. Jeez, does the guy have to solve world hunger, too?

While the spectacle was ostensibly a testimony on the imperiled Libra payment system rollout, it quickly devolved into an "I don't like Facebook" video op. Representative after representative took to the mic to chastise Zuckerberg about their own particular bugaboos—election interference, data privacy, political ads, censorship—often with little regard to the topic at hand.

If you were hoping to learn more about how Facebook intends to structure the Libra network at the House Financial Services Committee hearing, you came to the wrong place. This summer's testimony with the decidedly less-soundbite-worthy Calibra head David Marcus yielded much more relevant and interesting questions, although there was a good amount of random Facebook-bashing there, too. Politicians just can't help themselves around a good punching bag.

And Zuckerberg did Congress a big favor in making himself especially punchable. This is not a snark about Mark the person: I'm talking specifically about the way he chose to structure his still-unborn (and maybe never-to-be-born) payment network.

Libra is often called a "cryptocurrency," but if it is, it's a weird one. It's not "open to anyone" like permissionless systems are; you need to be part of the hand-picked Libra Association in order to run the network. Libra Association members are scarce and very identifiable. This means they make prime targets for politicians seeking to exert control.

Compare Libra to a true permissionless network like Bitcoin. If politicians wanted to shut Bitcoin down, what could they do?

Good luck finding Satoshi. Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator did both himself and the network a huge favor by remaining unknown. He can't be wheeled out to face any catty congresscritters' absurd demands, nor can he be pressured to change the network in a more government-kosher direction.

Nor could Congress have any hope of subpoenaing each Bitcoin node operator: there are simply too many of them, and anyone can connect or disconnect from the network at any time.

This is very different from Libra, which not only has a small list of very public potential operators, its public face is one of American's most infamous men.

When I last wrote about Libra for Reason, I predicted that governments would target Libra Association members and convince them to fold. This happened quickly.

Most of the legacy financial institutions that lent credibility to the venture—like Visa, Mastercard, and Marcus's former colleagues at PayPal—dropped out of the project after receiving threatening letters from politicians or bad press.

The Libra Association pushed ahead with smiles through the turmoil, naming a crypto-star-studded new board at its inaugural member meeting. Still, you have to think the fallout—predictable though it may have been—stung.

Many suggest that Libra's sour welcome results from Facebook's (and perhaps cryptocurrency's) bad reputation. I think that's only partly true.

To understand why it is Libra's very structure that invites controversy, we can compare Mark Zuckerberg's approach towards cryptocurrency with that of another CEO of a controversial tech platform: Jack Dorsey.

Twitter's CEO faces many of the same criticisms that Zuckerberg does. While Twitter is much smaller than Facebook, its role as a gatekeeper for speech invites similar problems. Twitter has also been castigated for censorship, foreign influence, and allowing certain kinds of speech. It's hard for social media platforms to please everyone. So most people end up pretty peeved about Twitter's content policies most of the time.

You might think that this controversy over Twitter's content moderation would follow Dorsey's cryptocurrency endeavors. It hasn't, and it's in part because of the alternative path that Dorsey chose to pursue.

Dorsey did not try to build his own cryptocurrency from scratch, let alone anoint himself and a few allies as privileged network validators. Rather, he chose to build on Bitcoin.

Many people don't know that Dorsey also owns Square, which is a fintech company that offers the popular Cash payment app. The Cash App makes it really easy for people to pay each other. It is also one of the easiest ways to buy, sell, and deposit Bitcoin, and it has won surprising accolades from the notoriously hard-to-please cryptocurrency community.

Square differs from a lot of other cryptocurrency platforms, too. Many of the popular exchange and wallet services, like Coinbase, allow a host of cryptocurrencies to be traded on their platforms. This can invite controversy and regulatory scrutiny.

For example, if Coinbase employees were to buy a bunch of a certain cryptocurrency before they knew their company was going to list it, which would be sure to increase the price, that would look like insider trading. Or if Coinbase decided to list a cryptocurrency that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) eventually rules is an unlicensed security, that would create big legal problems.

Square sticks to Bitcoin, which is the oldest and therefore most vetted of the bunch. Because it's been around so long, the regulatory issues around Bitcoin are far more settled than some of the newer and more exotic offerings over which other platforms' lawyers agonize.

And Bitcoin is solidly permissionless, unlike other cryptocurrencies that may selectively make changes to benefit certain user groups. Sticking with Bitcoin means that Dorsey cuts down on potential corruption or regulatory risks while still offering a solid cryptocurrency product to Square users. Square is simply beholden to the same rules as other custodial payment networks.

For these reasons, it's unlikely that Dorsey will ever have to humble himself before Congress and beg for permission to continue his crypto-dabblings. He's just another Bitcoin businessman, not the privileged leader of a would-be permissioned network.

Dorsey could have easily chosen to throw his millions at a custom-built cryptocurrency. In fact, Zuckerberg invited him to. But when the Libra team approached Square about joining the Libra Association, Dorsey said, "hell no!" He specifically recoiled at the fact that Libra is "not an internet open standard" and therefore is "not consistent with what I personally believe and what I want our company to stand for." Eschewing the Association also removes Dorsey from any Libra-related political crosshairs, which is surely a headache that the Twitter CEO does not need.

I don't want to toot Dorsey's horn too much. Just last week, for instance, Twitter announced that it would ban political ads on its platform. This places Twitter in the position of needing to determine what a political ad is—does fawning news coverage count?—and introduces a political subjectivity shrouded by faux neutrality. Compare to Facebook's surprising decision to largely remove itself from this determination.

So it's really not about Jack Dorsey the man or Mark Zuckerberg the man. They have both made their fortunes building trusted third party-based social networks, with all the attending problems.

But when it comes to their approaches to cryptocurrency, Dorsey and Zuckerberg hold quite different cryptocurrency philosophies, and the potential blowback they can face follow from their visions. Dorsey just needs to worry about being a good custodial steward—he's not trying to be a pre-doxed Satoshi. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, has decided to paint a huge target on his and his network's backs. We shouldn't be surprised if state pressure eventually causes Libra to compromise itself or shut down completely.

NEXT: Court Orders Removal of Libelous Blog Posts About Former DHS Secretary Nominee Bernard Kerik

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have always been curious how much the NSA et al know about spambots. My guess is that with all the snooping they do, they know where 99% of spam comes from, they know all the botnet nodes and control protocol, and if they wanted to, they cut cut off all that spam in an instant. But they’d rather keep mum, not only because new ones would pop up almost immediately, but because they might want to take over those botnets for themselves some day.

    Similarly, I wonder if they know who Satoshi is. I’m not sure what they’d gain by knowing this and keeping it secret. Do they think it enables them to corrupt and control Bitcoin at will?

    1. Similarly, I wonder if they know who Satoshi is. I’m not sure what they’d gain by knowing this and keeping it secret. Do they think it enables them to corrupt and control Bitcoin at will?

      I’m not sure it would enable them to corrupt Bitcoin at all, since I don’t think Satoshi has anything special that would be needed to influence it (namely a substantial percentage of hash power). There are some conspiracy theories that Satoshi is actually some team at NSA or DARPA. At first it seems bizarre, but I have heard that there are factions within the NSA that are actually pretty strongly pro-encryption, seeing the lack of encryption as a bigger national security threat than the inability to universally spy on electronic communications.

      That said, I do think DARPA has participated in some cryptocurrency development; again, not sure why, but the charitable hypothesis would be that they see robust decentralized networks as important to national security.

  2. called to personally account for the ills of racial inequality, online crime, and foreign conflict—as if he personally willed these devils into the world. Jeez, does the guy have to solve world hunger, too?

    There’s a part of me that doesn’t feel sorry for Zuckerberg. Too many of these tech CEOs, Zuckerberg most definitely included, have tried to spin their products and their companies in a kind of benevolent force in the world, bringing democratization of information and lifting people out of poverty through various programs and social initiatives– always conveniently centered around their products.

    When called by world leaders to participate in summits and what not, they’re quick to punch that time clock and rub elbows with the world’s political elite.

    So I have a hard time feeling sorry for a guy that voluntarily and knowingly waded into a pit of snakes, only to discover he’s repeatedly getting bitten.

  3. Compare Libra to a true permissionless network like Bitcoin. If politicians wanted to shut Bitcoin down, what could they do?

    Confiscate it whenever they find it, ban, shut down or prosecute anyone openly engaging in bitcoin transactions, shut down or sanction any company attempting to perform legitimate bitcoin business in the light of day.

    Arrest any foreign executives who deal in bitcoin abroad at a US port of entry, even if they’re just passing through.

    1. Yeah, that would certainly kill its appeal here, though htat would really be a move of desperation.

      Then again, the idea behind Bitcoin was a tool for desperate times…

    2. But in general, I think the point of the article quote is that although the government absolutely can do what you list, it is much, much harder than if they only had a couple of companies to go after.

      1. And I understand that point, and for the record, I think it’s a good article that’s spot on. My point is just a friendly reminder that if government wanted to make it difficult for you to transact in bitcoin, they can do it quite easily.

        Impossible? No. But they can chase it into the shadows and keep everyone who continues to transact with it looking over their shoulder.

        And I’ll leave all the technical problems with BitCoin (specifically) out of this thread because they’re too numerous to list.

  4. This places Twitter in the position of needing to determine what a political ad is—does fawning news coverage count?

    No, it does not, if that news coverage didn’t pay Jack Dorsey to receive a sponsored spot with guaranteed delivery.

    1. Exactly. Arguably, this (like most campaign finance reform) gives the incumbent a big advantage.

      1. It does indeed, I’m not here to argue against that point. But several times I’ve seen people suggest that Twitter must now review every Free Man’s Posts on twitter for possible subversive political content that could be interpreted as supporting a candidate. That’s not what Twitter is doing. They merely won’t take money from me to spout it.

        Where twitter will ultimately fail in this policy is that people will pay for ads that are non-political by Jack Dorsey’s standards, but seen by many as political-and they’ll be criticized for it. It’s a losing strategy in the long term the instant we get a Planned Parenthood ad.

        1. Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I don’t disagree with you. I was just adding to the point.

Please to post comments