4 ms·

I truly don't understand why people are so upset about this. If you're claiming bankruptcy but sitting on a fat crypto wallet, why should it not be subject? Y

by klyrs 5y ago

I truly don't understand why people are so upset about this. If you're claiming bankruptcy but sitting on a fat crypto wallet, why should it not be subject? Your bank isn't going to hide assets for you, why would any other legitimate business?

xiphias2 5y ago
The difference is like storing money in a physical safe where you still own the values, vs on a bank account where you are a creditor. People would prefer to store crypto in the first type of institution.
daenz 5y ago
This isn't about an individual declaring bankruptcy. It's about Coinbase declaring bankruptcy, and users' wallets being used to pay Coinbase's debts. That's why people are upset.
- cowvin 5y ago
  Yes, but it's not as weird as it sounds. It says the users are creditors as well so using the users' accounts to pay the users is not particularly strange.
  - daenz 5y ago
    Specifically, it says "unsecured creditors" who get paid after debts to secured creditors. The "credit" is the contents of their wallets.
    - UncleEntity 5y ago
      Sure, why would anyone invest in them if they weren’t sure they’d get paid out first when things go bad? Kind of like the banks back in ‘09 making their depositors take a haircut to ensure the bank didn’t go under. Nobody really complained because it was the offshore banks where oligarchs and such hide their money and they received ‘ownership’ in return for them stealing their deposits.
      - cko 5y ago
        If Charles Schwab goes under I'm pretty sure I still own the shares I bought through them though.
      - jrumbut 5y ago
        But the average American, or even pretty financially sophisticated ones, don't have experience with an institution like that. I think it's fair to expect users to know the coins they buy might lose value, but this is a bizarre and unexpected risk. It's clear from this thread that hardly anyone thought to consider this risk because they are trading off the expectations created by other, better regulated institutions (namely domestic banks). Edit: I may have misread your intentions, when I wrote this I thought you were saying this arrangement was OK because it has happened elsewhere.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - omegalulw 5y ago
    It's weird because this is violating a fundamental principle that people generally associate with crypto: if you know the keys, you own the crypto. At least this is the case for Bitcoin.
    - xiphias2 5y ago
      It doesn't: coinbase owns the keys, so they own your crypto.
      - thawaya3113 5y ago
        Now let’s put that in the Coinbase marketing and see what happens… “Invest in Crypto, by giving us $100 with which we will buy $100 worth of BTC that we own.” How is that not weird and who would follow a QR code on their TV ago “Invest in crypto” if this was at the top of the page they opened?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- klyrs 5y ago
  Oh, that makes a lot more sense, thanks. Yeah, that's rather terrifying.
TheGigaChad 5y ago

by klyrs 5y ago

xiphias2 5y ago

The difference is like storing money in a physical safe where you still own the values, vs on a bank account where you are a creditor. People would prefer to store crypto in the first type of institution.

daenz 5y ago

This isn't about an individual declaring bankruptcy. It's about Coinbase declaring bankruptcy, and users' wallets being used to pay Coinbase's debts. That's why people are upset.

cowvin 5y ago
Yes, but it's not as weird as it sounds. It says the users are creditors as well so using the users' accounts to pay the users is not particularly strange.
- daenz 5y ago
  Specifically, it says "unsecured creditors" who get paid after debts to secured creditors. The "credit" is the contents of their wallets.
  - UncleEntity 5y ago
    Sure, why would anyone invest in them if they weren’t sure they’d get paid out first when things go bad? Kind of like the banks back in ‘09 making their depositors take a haircut to ensure the bank didn’t go under. Nobody really complained because it was the offshore banks where oligarchs and such hide their money and they received ‘ownership’ in return for them stealing their deposits.
    - cko 5y ago
      If Charles Schwab goes under I'm pretty sure I still own the shares I bought through them though.
    - jrumbut 5y ago
      But the average American, or even pretty financially sophisticated ones, don't have experience with an institution like that. I think it's fair to expect users to know the coins they buy might lose value, but this is a bizarre and unexpected risk. It's clear from this thread that hardly anyone thought to consider this risk because they are trading off the expectations created by other, better regulated institutions (namely domestic banks). Edit: I may have misread your intentions, when I wrote this I thought you were saying this arrangement was OK because it has happened elsewhere.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- omegalulw 5y ago
  It's weird because this is violating a fundamental principle that people generally associate with crypto: if you know the keys, you own the crypto. At least this is the case for Bitcoin.
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    It doesn't: coinbase owns the keys, so they own your crypto.
    - thawaya3113 5y ago
      Now let’s put that in the Coinbase marketing and see what happens… “Invest in Crypto, by giving us $100 with which we will buy $100 worth of BTC that we own.” How is that not weird and who would follow a QR code on their TV ago “Invest in crypto” if this was at the top of the page they opened?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
klyrs 5y ago
Oh, that makes a lot more sense, thanks. Yeah, that's rather terrifying.

TheGigaChad 5y ago