the statement was that a company operating illegally is _less_ trustworthy than one operating legally. I think it is plausible, because if the company (through

the statement was that a company operating illegally is _less_ trustworthy than one operating legally. I think it is plausible, because if the company (through some wonder) picks and chooses which law it abides to, then it literally can scam anyone out of their life savings without any consequences… I mean, it’s all pros and cons: governements have some cons, but they also offer a framework which is protecting you to some extend from scams. If you decide to deal with a company operating outside the law, you can avoid the government spying/tracking (which, depending on the country you live in, may be vital) _but_, such companies cannot be sued or anything, so you have significantly less legal protections…