I wonder how the Association will agree on the criteria and weights for the peg? I see that it’s subject to a supermajority vote in the early stages, but the long-run intent is for “Minimizing the association’s role as manager of the Libra Reserve by fully automating reserve management”.
If decisions are fully automated, then either i) the reserve is managed to a transparent international benchmark like the SDR or some weighted average (i.e. relative GDP, trade, or FX turnover), or ii) the reserve composition is unlikely to change once the automation phase begins.
Interested in hearing others’ thoughts on this. here’s some more info on a competitor stablecoin’s decision for pegging their multi-currency basket to the SDR: https://medium.com/terra-money/rationale-for-including-multiple-fiat-currencies-in-terras-peg-1ea9eae9de2a
p.s. is it optimal to have only one currency for this new ecosystem?..why not have a Libra ‘mothership’ currency whose composition is set by the Association, and then allow for atomic swaps to Libra ‘sovereign’ currencies that are pegged to individual fiat currencies. People will want to store their savings in a ‘mothership’ type currency, but will prefer to spend in a ‘sovereign’ currency. Having the ‘sovereign’ currency option will mean that people are more likely to keep and use their money within the Libra ecosystem, so they download their money back to the sovereign (fiat) world less often. A multicurrency ‘mothership’/‘sovereign’ approach might also help ward off this type of criticism: https://gizmodo.com/congress-demands-facebook-put-brakes-on-libra-cryptocur-1836073691