3 ms·

I guess I can't say I'm surprised by yet another confidently wrong claim on your part. This is one of the most high-profile cases of bankruptcy, where very dete

by SilasX 4y ago

I guess I can't say I'm surprised by yet another confidently wrong claim on your part. This is one of the most high-profile cases of bankruptcy, where very determined creditors are hellbent on pulling out every penny from a very obvious fraud. And in this case, we already know that -- right in line with my claim -- depositors at one arm of the debtor did in fact have their deposits legally insulated from the (very extensive) creditor claims. And yet you are claiming, in this very instance, that that is not possible, even as it already happened. You couldn't be more wrong on the facts here. Perhaps you could have limited yourself to a lesser claim that, under specific conditions, that you enumerate from actual knowledge, depositors can't step ahead of other creditors. By being open and honest, and revealing the full basis of your belief, you could have said something at least true, even if you were (very honorably) wrong about the applicability to this particular case. You didn't take that route. You instead went with the tried-and-true "if I say it confidently enough, I have to be right". Sigh. In the other thread[1], you claimed I'm upset at you for your views on crypto. This is childish and false. I love to hear meaningful corrections to my worldmodel. Your comments aren't doing that. You're instead finding the most solid parts, and baselessly asserting things about them that are demonstrably false. I can't actually learn from that sophistry or meaningfully update my beliefs. No one can. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559836

kasey_junk 4y ago
You are really missing what he's saying. That this particular default was subject to a bankruptcy judge means a few things that would bring alarm bells to any professional risk manager. Its not a _good_ thing, its just not the worst thing. A few off the top of my head: It went to bankruptcy at all. With more forceful regulatory regimes (eg banking/brokerages) they skip bankruptcy proceedings for the most senior debt holders entirely. The regulator steps in and disburses the funds much faster. The judge had discretion, there was no legal insulation to LedgerX's creditors. They just had maintained enough arms distance to satisfy a bankruptcy judge to rule in one set of creditors favor over another's. His point is that unlike in other regulatory regimes, nothing in the law, says that deposits at a CFTC exchange are more senior to any other liability. And the precedence on clearing house default is not extensive. Most risk managers would view the fact that this judge ruled in their favor as the saving grace to a mistake on the risk management side. Also, you are on tilt here. Statements like "You couldn't be more wrong on the facts here." are pretty embarrassing when you are misconstruing things so dramatically.

by SilasX 4y ago

kasey_junk 4y ago

You are really missing what he's saying. That this particular default was subject to a bankruptcy judge means a few things that would bring alarm bells to any professional risk manager. Its not a _good_ thing, its just not the worst thing. A few off the top of my head: It went to bankruptcy at all. With more forceful regulatory regimes (eg banking/brokerages) they skip bankruptcy proceedings for the most senior debt holders entirely. The regulator steps in and disburses the funds much faster. The judge had discretion, there was no legal insulation to LedgerX's creditors. They just had maintained enough arms distance to satisfy a bankruptcy judge to rule in one set of creditors favor over another's. His point is that unlike in other regulatory regimes, nothing in the law, says that deposits at a CFTC exchange are more senior to any other liability. And the precedence on clearing house default is not extensive. Most risk managers would view the fact that this judge ruled in their favor as the saving grace to a mistake on the risk management side. Also, you are on tilt here. Statements like "You couldn't be more wrong on the facts here." are pretty embarrassing when you are misconstruing things so dramatically.