5 ms·
You're bizarrely reversing the burden of proof here. If they're solvent, it should be a simple matter to prove it. If "insider knowledge" has the answer, they s
by Sangermaine 9y ago
You're bizarrely reversing the burden of proof here. If they're solvent, it should be a simple matter to prove it. If "insider knowledge" has the answer, they should easily be able to assuage all doubts.
- arisAlexis 9y agothey have huge incentive not to disclose exactly where their accounts are offshore due to potential government crackdowns on crypto. that is why their previous audit was difficult, attested the amounts but ultimately was cancelled. you can see the amount of panic and fanatism by the downvotes on my previous comment. be sure to bookmark this chat for the future :)
- Sangermaine 9y agoSure, but I’m not sure why you’d want written proof of your gullibility and credulousness.
- dictum 9y agoThe simpler answer is that counting on the other party to do right when you have absolute information asymmetry has always been a sucker's game. Yes, this time it may be different. But even the classic Nigerian scam is based on the premise that you cannot verify the claims – you cannot involve the government, the police or any other third-party, you just have to trust the relative of the disgraced kleptocrat to receive your millions.
- arisAlexis 9y agocomparing the biggest crypto exchange by volume to a nigerian scam is kind of extreme imo. The tech is there and they have always delivered. Yes they don't have an audit and I hope they produce it but govs do crack down lately.
- arisAlexis 9y agoyou can even see the fanatism of downvotes to such a simple comment I made