"many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately

"many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately percieve. When something really isn't fair, even by some indirect means or when accounting for some other imperative like geneneral societal necessity, then they are at least understood to be failures not successes. This story though... it actually provides a good example of indirect fairness. Well yes and no, there's a point and also a counter to that point, net result throw up my hands glad I'm not in crypto: Point, it's fair: You got robbed and think it's unfair that there's no recourse. That downside is just the fair price of being in that game at all, which you pay in trade for not having to deal with the traditional system and "the man". You have to absorb the occasional loss from a mistake as just a feature of the environment like the risk of your shipping boat sinking because the ocean is not a safe place. The only protection possible is pay an insurer or maintain your own emergency escrow or something, not any kind of police or rule-daddy. Point, it's not fair: They are not in fact free of the man, and so they are not really getting the true freedom they are paying for by assuming all responsibility for their own risk.