6 ms·

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. “Send the money back or we’ll follow the laws we were supposed to be following anyway!” Patio11 had a thread on Twitter bet

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. “Send the money back or we’ll follow the laws we were supposed to be following anyway!” Patio11 had a thread on Twitter better than this article.

blfr 5y ago
I believe it starts here https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736
- kevinpet 5y ago
  Interesting. Except that recent events regarding Citigroups incorrect $900M payout on the Revlon bond shows that in fact grown up finance will sometimes say, actually, the law is the law and the contract doesn't cover this, so thanks for the money. This was a case where the bond holders did have some claim to the money, but it was clearly an error.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > This was a case where the bond holders did have some claim to the money, but it was clearly an error. You refer to recent events, and I don't know how recent, so maybe I missed something; but my understanding was that the finding was that it was reasonable for Revlon to believe when they received the fund that it was a legitimate payment, not just an error. Of course in retrospect (e.g., when Citigroup calls and says so!) it is clear that it was an error, but the legal argument, whether or not you buy its truth, was that it was not clear at the time. I think that this sort of finding in which both grown-up financiers decide not to be chummy about misplaced funds, and the law sides with them in not requiring them to do so, is comparatively rare.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      I'm a little foggy on details, but I remember reading that the bond holders had been kind of mistreated before all this. Something to do with reorganizing or splitting off valuable parts of the company. The bond holders weren't too happy as it was beginning to look like they might not get their money back. So it makes sense why they would not be quick to cooperate and return what they initially thought were early payments.
  - blfr 5y ago
    'patio11 covers that and notes that it was fairly exceptional https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443739575872999424 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443739575872999424
SilasX 5y ago
"Better" is debatable. If you've ever actually wired money to scammer, you'd know that the banking system isn't one giant kumbaya circle run on gentlemen's agreements to Do The Right Thing, and you were rolling your eyes through the whole thread[1]. At most, it works like that for anyone rich or working on behalf of a big firm, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And don't you worry, cryptocurrencies are just as capable of reversing transactions of those with the real power! [2] [1] Thanks to blfr for finding the link: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 [2] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao
- fossuser 5y ago
  I think what that twitter thread points out is that #2 is harder and less common in crypto (for better or worse) in the current state. What would be a trivial correction in the normal system isn't here. There are also a lot more ways for regular people to reverse transactions, but I take your point about how hard it is to reverse wires to scammers. I'm still pretty bullish on DeFi.

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. “Send the money back or we’ll follow the laws we were supposed to be following anyway!” Patio11 had a thread on Twitter better than this article.

blfr 5y ago

I believe it starts here https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736

kevinpet 5y ago
Interesting. Except that recent events regarding Citigroups incorrect $900M payout on the Revlon bond shows that in fact grown up finance will sometimes say, actually, the law is the law and the contract doesn't cover this, so thanks for the money. This was a case where the bond holders did have some claim to the money, but it was clearly an error.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > This was a case where the bond holders did have some claim to the money, but it was clearly an error. You refer to recent events, and I don't know how recent, so maybe I missed something; but my understanding was that the finding was that it was reasonable for Revlon to believe when they received the fund that it was a legitimate payment, not just an error. Of course in retrospect (e.g., when Citigroup calls and says so!) it is clear that it was an error, but the legal argument, whether or not you buy its truth, was that it was not clear at the time. I think that this sort of finding in which both grown-up financiers decide not to be chummy about misplaced funds, and the law sides with them in not requiring them to do so, is comparatively rare.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I'm a little foggy on details, but I remember reading that the bond holders had been kind of mistreated before all this. Something to do with reorganizing or splitting off valuable parts of the company. The bond holders weren't too happy as it was beginning to look like they might not get their money back. So it makes sense why they would not be quick to cooperate and return what they initially thought were early payments.
- blfr 5y ago
  'patio11 covers that and notes that it was fairly exceptional https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443739575872999424 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443739575872999424

SilasX 5y ago

"Better" is debatable. If you've ever actually wired money to scammer, you'd know that the banking system isn't one giant kumbaya circle run on gentlemen's agreements to Do The Right Thing, and you were rolling your eyes through the whole thread[1]. At most, it works like that for anyone rich or working on behalf of a big firm, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And don't you worry, cryptocurrencies are just as capable of reversing transactions of those with the real power! [2] [1] Thanks to blfr for finding the link: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1443738002065268736 [2] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao

fossuser 5y ago
I think what that twitter thread points out is that #2 is harder and less common in crypto (for better or worse) in the current state. What would be a trivial correction in the normal system isn't here. There are also a lot more ways for regular people to reverse transactions, but I take your point about how hard it is to reverse wires to scammers. I'm still pretty bullish on DeFi.