3 ms·
So you needed to get 'your' BTC into a real wallet (and not an exchange) to be able to have pre-fork BTC that would act as BCH. While similar to both currency
by vetrom 9y ago
So you needed to get 'your' BTC into a real wallet (and not an exchange) to be able to have pre-fork BTC that would act as BCH.
While similar to both currency and commodity, this is one of the situations where cryptocurrency acts as more of a fungible contract than either the currency or commodity. IANAL, but it seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of law written on that. I'd argue that Coinbase expended its fiduciary duty by warning their users of the fork.
Coinbase/kraken/et al., however, don't create/issue the cryptocoins, so it's probably a misnomer to call them exchanges. At best, they are brokerages.
Now say that a bunch of users decided to instruct their broker that's holding their security in trust to so assign the security to the user, and the brokerage sat on that transaction rather than perform the request in a timely fashion? I'd say that potentially counts as a whole host of other actionable events, depending on the intent of the brokerage operators. Not sure if I'd call that front running, but that sounds like a good start to investigate.
- davesque 9y ago> I'd argue that Coinbase expended its fiduciary duty by warning their users of the fork. But people are arguing, and I think convincingly, that Coinbase didn't provide enough lead time after sending out the email announcing their decision. Coinbase also essentially gets to pocket all the extra value which should reasonably have belonged to their customers. IANAL either, but I have to imagine there are the beginnings of something like an unjust enrichment claim here.