3 ms·
I like this. They are basically making a call to self insure against these types of incidents and paying out of their own coffers. It makes sense since recoveri
by jtchang 5y ago
I like this. They are basically making a call to self insure against these types of incidents and paying out of their own coffers. It makes sense since recovering the stolen crypto is near impossible (as designed).
It's funny how everything old is new again. We are just reinventing FDIC insurance for crypto.
- gowld 5y agoFDIC insures your account against bank's overall business collapse. It doesn't insure your personal account against bank robbery of your sepcific account (deceptively named "identity theft"). I don't think you'd get FDIC money back if an attacker got into your account. The bank might cover you if they agree it was their fault, similar to Coinbase.
- tastyfreeze 5y agoThere is a difference between self insured and government insured. At the end of the day I prefer self or market insured so the business itself is on the hook for a breach.
- z3c0 5y agoNot a bad thing, really. It'll be what's needed to win over skeptics. I mean, they'll more likely just move the goalposts than be won over, but at least they're running out of things to complain about. Between this and the Coinbase card, Coinbase has already tackled the two biggest (valid) critiques of crypto that I hear.
- xqyf 5y agoThe FDIC is a government agency created after bank runs were common during the Depression. This is much different, nothing has been "reinvented".
- rhinoceraptor 5y agoAfter all, crypto is speedrunning 500 years of bad economics...
- htrp 5y agoTheoretically every bank was self-insured back in the pre FDIC era... the problem was that some banks didn't actually have the reserves (especially given fractional reserve banking)