In 2019, Facebook (now Meta) unveiled one of the most ambitious blockchain projects ever proposed by a tech giant: Libra. Marketed as a global digital currency designed to “bank the unbanked” and reduce cross-border friction, Libra was introduced with immense hype—and even greater skepticism.
By 2022, the project had been shelved, rebranded, and ultimately sold off. Today, it’s remembered not as a success story but as a cautionary tale in the convergence of Big Tech and blockchain.
So what went wrong? And more importantly, why do Big Tech companies—even with their resources, scale, and talent—continue to struggle with crypto? Let’s unpack what Libra’s failure teaches us about the challenges that still stand in the way.
What Was Libra?
Libra was Facebook’s proposed stablecoin project, initially pegged to a basket of global currencies. It was introduced as a way to create a low-volatility, global digital currency that could be used by billions of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram users.
The idea was bold: leverage Facebook’s massive user base to build an alternative financial ecosystem, particularly targeting people without access to traditional banking services.
To deflect regulatory concern, Facebook set up an independent governing body—the Libra Association—which included firms like Visa, Uber, and Spotify. The blockchain itself would be run as a permissioned network with the eventual goal of decentralization.
Where It Went Off the Rails
Despite its carefully worded mission and corporate partnerships, Libra was dead on arrival in the eyes of regulators.
🚫 Regulatory Backlash
Governments quickly saw Libra not as a financial tool, but as a direct threat to monetary sovereignty. Officials from the U.S., EU, and central banks across the globe voiced concerns that Libra could destabilize fiat currencies, undermine policy control, and become a vehicle for illicit finance.
🤝 Trust Issues
Facebook, reeling from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, was already under fire for privacy violations and monopolistic behavior. The idea of Facebook launching a global currency raised alarm bells: Could a company that mishandled user data be trusted to manage a global financial network?
🔄 Shifting Vision
In response to criticism, the Libra project went through several rebrands:
- From Libra to Diem
- From a currency basket to USD-pegged stablecoin
- From global ambition to U.S.-only trials
Eventually, Diem was sold off to Silvergate Bank in 2022 and quietly shut down.
Big Tech’s Crypto Conundrum
Libra’s failure wasn’t just about Facebook—it exposed the broader friction between Big Tech and blockchain. Here’s what we’ve learned:
1. Decentralization and Control Are Opposed Forces
Crypto was born from distrust in centralized power. Big Tech thrives on centralized ecosystems, walled gardens, and data monopolies. This makes them natural antagonists to the ethos of decentralization.
When a tech giant launches a crypto project, the community asks:
“Is this really about decentralization—or is it another way to control our wallets, data, and transactions?”
Libra, though built on blockchain, was centralized and tightly controlled. That killed its credibility with both crypto-native users and regulators.
2. Trust Is Earned, Not Acquired
Facebook thought it could enter finance the way it entered messaging or social networking: with a sleek rollout and brand partnerships. But money is different.
Financial systems are built on deep trust, long-term compliance, and clear governance. Facebook didn’t have a track record in finance, and its history with user data made the trust gap insurmountable.
Lesson: You can’t just “pivot to crypto.” You need to earn your place in the ecosystem, not buy it.
3. Governments Don’t Like Being Disrupted
Startups like Uniswap or Chainlink can fly under the radar for a while. But when a company like Facebook, with billions of users, announces a currency project, governments take notice—fast.
Libra inadvertently triggered a wave of central bank responses:
- The U.S. fast-tracked research into a digital dollar (CBDC)
- The EU accelerated MiCA, its landmark crypto regulation
- China doubled down on the Digital Yuan
In short, Libra made governments nervous—and they moved to assert control.
4. Crypto Isn’t Just Tech—It’s Culture
Crypto isn’t just about code; it’s about ideology. It’s anti-bank, anti-censorship, and anti-middleman. It’s driven by open-source contributors, cypherpunks, and meme communities, not corporate roadmaps.
Libra was a boardroom product, not a grassroots movement. It never captured the imagination of crypto enthusiasts or the trust of regulators.
Big Tech often underestimates the cultural DNA of the blockchain space. Projects succeed not just because they work—but because they resonate.
So, Can Big Tech Ever Win in Crypto?
Yes—but not in the way it tried with Libra.
Here’s what Big Tech needs to do differently:
✅ Embrace Open Infrastructure
Instead of building their own chains, tech companies can contribute to existing ecosystems—supporting Ethereum, Solana, or Layer 2 solutions. Think integrations, not takeovers.
✅ Focus on Onboarding, Not Owning
Meta could make onboarding into wallets and NFTs seamless via Instagram. Apple could enable crypto payments through Apple Pay. Amazon could accept stablecoins. These are bridges, not empires.
✅ Partner with the Community
Work with DAOs, support Web3 standards, open-source some code. Show a willingness to collaborate rather than dominate.
✅ Let Users Control Their Data and Assets
If Big Tech really wants to win in Web3, it has to give up some control. Wallets should be self-custodied. Data should be portable. Privacy should be a feature, not an afterthought.
Final Thoughts: Libra Was a Warning Shot
Libra didn’t fail because the tech was bad—it failed because the intent and structure were incompatible with both crypto values and global financial governance.
Its collapse reminded us that crypto isn’t just about technology. It’s about sovereignty, trust, and participation. Big Tech, if it wants to play in this space, must learn that lesson well.
Crypto won’t be “disrupted” by the same old methods. To succeed here, even giants must adapt—or be left behind.