Washington D.C. – In recent developments, Congresswoman Maxine Waters has communicated apprehensions regarding Meta’s foray into the cryptocurrency domain through a series of trademark filings. These actions by Meta have prompted the Congresswoman to seek a clearer picture of the company’s ambitions in the web3 landscape.
Congressional Inquiry into Meta’s Crypto Strategy
Rep. Maxine Waters, a prominent member of the House Financial Services Committee, has formally reached out to the executives at Meta, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Javier Olivan. Waters’ correspondence requests detailed insights into the strategic objectives behind Meta’s recent actions in the digital assets space, particularly after the company filed five trademark applications pertinent to cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.
Meta’s Trademark Filings Under Scrutiny
The trademark applications, originally initiated on March 18, 2022, seem to suggest Meta’s persistent interest in diversifying into the digital asset ecosystem. This interpretation is drawn despite the absence of any official communiqués from Meta, leaving their current crypto-related engagements, if any, in a state of ambiguity.
Discrepancies in Meta’s Crypto Narratives
Adding to the complexity, statements made by Meta staff to U.S. regulators in October 2023 indicated that the company was not actively involved in any cryptocurrency-related projects. These assertions included a lack of collaboration with partners on stablecoin integration, as well as a disengagement from research and development within the cryptocurrency sphere.
Historical Context of Meta’s Crypto Endeavors
Rep. Waters has not let past initiatives slide from memory, especially Facebook’s attempt to launch its own cryptocurrency, initially called Libra and later renamed Diem. The project, which began with much fanfare in June 2019, faced considerable pushback from lawmakers and ultimately dissolved in 2022. The failed venture concluded with the Diem Association selling its assets to Silvergate Bank for an estimated $200 million, succumbing to regulatory pressures and criticism from federal entities.
English