> "updated security measure" The misconception that security is additive is deep rooted in a primitive view of the world that I can not imagine going away soon

> "updated security measure" The misconception that security is additive is deep rooted in a primitive view of the world that I can not imagine going away soon. If you have 10 cm of concrete protecting you, it's better than 5 cm of concrete. So if you have a grade 10 padlock and a grade 5 padlock (higher being better), it's better than just having the grade 10 padlock. Substitute padlock for any system that can be intelligently hacked. My cynical view after having worked in regulatory compliance with so-called "security consultants" who are essentially paper pushers is that any security flaw can be fixed with the right wording in a document. In fact it might even be preferrable than fixing the flaw in software. This is comparable to activating a linter only on touched files, not all historical code. You could blame incompetence, but a real assessment is made: You earn more if you allow some amount of holes, blame evil hackers, reverse transactions, apply insurance. Most cash is digital, and all banks are in it together. This is why banks hate blockchain: There are too many poorly made systems that assume we can undo transactions when we fuck up, and not fucking up is too expensive. When you have zero clue how something can go wrong, and you don't even know the probability up front, all you can do is bet on insurance and transaction reversal. tl;dr: I understand you want to reach through via tech, but the problem is: Lack of real security is a conscious decision.