3 ms·
But why is there no room for middle ground? If I’m personally fine with the risk/reward balance of non-protected partially backed finance, why is it not accepta
by donatj 6y ago
But why is there no room for middle ground? If I’m personally fine with the risk/reward balance of non-protected partially backed finance, why is it not acceptable?
- kasperni 6y agoLots of people are fine with the risk/reward balance of using recreational drugs, driving without a seatbelt, working as a sex worker, and tons of other things. And somehow that's not acceptable.
- donatj 6y agoTwo of the three on that list are legal in at least one of the countries involved. Moreover potential major bodily harm versus potential loss of savings don’t seem directly comparable.
- kasperni 6y agoFrom the stories I've read about people losing their entire life savings. It sounds as it is a deeply traumatic event. Which ranks up there with bodily harm, losing relatives, ect. And one which often has a permanent effect on the reminder of their life.
- jqpabc123 6y agoMost likely, because the only logical purpose of a "middle ground" is to create the illusion of financial backing that doesn't exist or can't be easily verified to exist. In other words, it's still a financial deception --- commonly known as a "scam". Attempting to sell part of a bridge that you may or may not own is still an illegal scam in most jurisdictions even though some may be "fine with it".