Stuart Alderoty is general counsel at Ripple. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.

Ever since Facebook unveiled its plan to launch a cryptocurrency, Libra, policymakers around the world have been up in arms. Beyond core concerns of trust, they are worried Libra could be used to launder money, finance terrorism or destabilize central bank fiat currencies.

They're right to be worried. Libra should not move forward until all concerns are fully addressed. But the debate surrounding Libra underscores a larger issue with the lack of clear regulation of cryptocurrencies at large.

Policymakers must first understand that comparing Libra to other cryptocurrencies is like comparing apples to oranges. These differences between Libra and other cryptocurrencies are not just semantics. They define how technology is deployed and used, and they also define how we need to think about regulation.

Libra is a permissioned, centralized platform that plans to issue asset-backed coins. What does that mean? According to the whitepaper, the Libra Association intends to grant permission to upwards of 100 members to centrally manage and control Libra. This is a closed system with the Libra Association serving as a centralized intermediary. Also, the value of the Libra coins will be "pegged" (much like how the US dollar was originally pegged to gold until 1971) to a variety of government-backed currencies, suggesting that over time it will compete directly with fiat currencies.

In contrast, other innovators are deploying technologies built on fully decentralized, permissionless platforms that are open to all to monitor, verify and innovate upon without a centralized intermediary.