5 ms·
This distinction sounds important but I don’t know why it is. Enlighten me?
by spiderice 2y ago
This distinction sounds important but I don’t know why it is. Enlighten me?
- sgammon 2y agoAny fluctuation — particularly increase - in those assets, since then, is not eligible for consideration
- wmf 2y agoIf you had 1 BTC deposited in FTX at the time of collapse you will get back around $20K but 1 BTC is worth around $70K today. You're not getting 100% back. https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-creditors-crypto-payout-rejection/ https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-creditors-crypto-payout-reje...
- yladiz 2y agoYou’re getting the dollar value of your investment when the bankruptcy happened, which is the only legal currency of the country where it was headquartered, so you are getting 100% in that sense. Maybe in Ecuador where Bitcoin is legal tender it would be different.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoThis has nothing to do with legal tender and everything to do with the bankruptcy code. Part of the point of bankruptcy is avoiding a race to submit claims. If you use market value, then someone who was paid out earlier or later could feel aggrieved. When FTX went bankrupt, the clock was stopped and the value of every asset frozen. We ringfence some things, and there is a decent argument for ringfencing crypto held in custody, but FTX wasn't doing that, it held some crypto, a bunch of crap and a spreadsheet promising Bitcoins to randos.
- Dudhbbh3343 2y agos/Ecuador/El Salvador/
- yladiz 2y agoThanks, I misremembered.
- nullc 2y agoWhat's more wild is that $20k price was what it was in part because FTX intentionally attempted to crash the Bitcoin price to get out from bitcoin denominated obligations, and because the bankruptcy fixed prices at a time before they had fully recovered from FTX's actions their manipulation was successful.