Playing the role of a bank without complying with its regulations can only lead to bankruptcy. The br project coin creation of the founder of Facebook, due to its number of potential users, does so
run an overall systemic risk to the economy.
Everyone knows more or less the exploits of John Law. In 1716, the Scottish financier was authorized
by an edict of the Regent to create a private bank, the Banque Générale, which would later become the Banque
royal. The capital is raised by public savings call, the shareholders do not have to pay in cash
metal than one fifth of the value of the securities and benefiting from a guaranteed dividend of high level.
Charles Ponzi, inventor in the 1920s of the pyramid of the same name, had therefore had an illustrious
predecessor.

A year later, in 1717, the Bank issued for the first time "banknotes", i.e.
paper money, the conversion of which into gold is guaranteed by the capital thus constituted and the metal
correspondent. Of course, the lure of profit meant that the quantity of money issued continued to increase,
to the point of quickly representing at least fifteen to twenty times gold and silver on deposit. In 1720, the enemies of
John Law, important figures of the court and big holders of banknotes, gave themselves the word for en
request the conversion at the same time. Trust disappeared, the mass of depositors presented themselves to
the exchange rue Quincampoix and the bankruptcy was resounding. Four years to go from inventive glory
bankrupt!
John Law is reappearing. Its contemporary incarnation is called Mark Zuckerberg and the
the currency he plans to create, the libra. Simply, where the former had national ambitions, those
of the second extend to the whole world. This will only increase systemic risk.
With ="fontstyle2">Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg could have just created an ou
several banks, using existing currencies everywhere. Nothing could prevent him from developing,
from these establishments and for the benefit of its customers, a vast digitalized and international system of
money and payment transfers, thus ensuring them a high quality service. This is not enough for him, il
wants to create its own currency. Why?
The answer is simple in principle. He is, like all great conquerors, looking for
ever more power and capacity for enrichment, which implies that he keeps a total freedom of
manoeuvre. Opening a bank means having to put the amounts of capital required by the
Regulator, it is above all to see the ratios imposed on the profession hinder the free use of sums
filed by customers. To be a deposit banker and only that is therefore to resign oneself to the exercise of a
very constrained profession, and therefore not very profitable.
Hence the invention of the libra, private currency that escapes the sovereignty of States and their banks
Central. John Law's banknote was supposed to represent gold (the "real money"), the libra de
Mark Zuckerberg a precisely defined basket of currencies, i.e. sovereign currencies, each
guaranteed by its issuing State ("real currencies"). But the libra is only a representation of it.
No risk for the carriers, mark Zuckerberg will say, like John Law in his time, since the libra is at
any moment freely convertible. It is still necessary that the resource is available. Only one method
would make it possible to have absolute assurance: that the stock of foreign currency constituted (the equivalent of the gold cash)
is continuously equal to the total value of the libras issued (the stock of banknotes). True, but with such a system,
the earnings of our brilliant inventors would remain zero. This is obviously not the objective pursued.
Mark Zuckerberg will therefore see with delight, especially during the initial phase of growth of the
system, that the newly issued libras more than compensate for those whose conversion is requested.
Ponzi is on its way again. Cash in foreign currency is largely useless. So we
use it to make profitable investments, i.e. riskier and above all less
liquids than sight currencies. Experience shows that this kind of acrobatics, rational in its
Principle, is always pushed too far, until bankruptcy: we pull on the security reserve until the moment
where it falls below the critical threshold. Any Ponzi scheme eventually collapses, either as a result of a
poor choice of assets, either because its structure becomes too illiquid to absorb changes in the
conjuncture. This is the reason why all trades where we collect money due on sight for
place it in more or less long investments, whether banking or insurance, are closely
Regulated. This does not prevent the occurrence of major crises (collapse of Wall Street in
1929, bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008) as soon as the regulatory system has flaws.
In short, Mark Zuckerberg can become a banker and comply with the corresponding rules, which he will have to
moreover, to harden to adapt them to a clientele of depositors by nature completely globalized. But
the libra<span class="fontstyle0">, a private currency potentially carrying a risk
systemic on a global scale.