3 ms·

Here's the thing about financial institutions: when they make a mistake, they pay for it. They should really be crediting him 62.9 BTC, which is approximately w

by kudu 13y ago

Here's the thing about financial institutions: when they make a mistake, they pay for it. They should really be crediting him 62.9 BTC, which is approximately what he would have gotten by selling on December 13 and buying again today.

thezilch 13y ago
No, the trade should have been failed. We can't just assume he would have sold opportunistically; that's insane.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Agreed, this is a failed trade. They should simply wire back the money to end this matter and blame a back-end gremlin. As a gesture of goodwill, maybe comp the guy $100 credit, cash, starbucks gift cards, whatever. They've actually made it worse now by executing the trade but only after a public outcry.
this_user 13y ago
That's true for traditional financial institutions that consider this the costs of doing business and can easily absorb such losses. Something like the $25mn Coinbase got in venture capital is lunch money for a JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. BTC on the other hand has insane amount of volatility and the players are comparatively small. You may simply find yourself in a situation were they are simply unable to refund your losses and instead declare bankruptcy.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Well that's the point - if you take a short/long position in BTC, then you must afford to pay it out even in fluctuations - if you can't, pay someone to hedge/'insure' it; if you don't - declare bankruptcy and pay up whatever you have. The whole point is that 'comparatively small' players shouldn't be allowed to take up insane amounts of volatility; if you accept consumer's money then it would be reasonable to require to put that $25mm as a bond to pay out your debts, and put a ceiling on how much deal volume you're allowed to hold if you've got only tiny amounts such as $25mm.

3 ms·

Here's the thing about financial institutions: when they make a mistake, they pay for it. They should really be crediting him 62.9 BTC, which is approximately w

by kudu 13y ago

thezilch 13y ago
No, the trade should have been failed. We can't just assume he would have sold opportunistically; that's insane.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Agreed, this is a failed trade. They should simply wire back the money to end this matter and blame a back-end gremlin. As a gesture of goodwill, maybe comp the guy $100 credit, cash, starbucks gift cards, whatever. They've actually made it worse now by executing the trade but only after a public outcry.
this_user 13y ago
That's true for traditional financial institutions that consider this the costs of doing business and can easily absorb such losses. Something like the $25mn Coinbase got in venture capital is lunch money for a JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. BTC on the other hand has insane amount of volatility and the players are comparatively small. You may simply find yourself in a situation were they are simply unable to refund your losses and instead declare bankruptcy.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Well that's the point - if you take a short/long position in BTC, then you must afford to pay it out even in fluctuations - if you can't, pay someone to hedge/'insure' it; if you don't - declare bankruptcy and pay up whatever you have. The whole point is that 'comparatively small' players shouldn't be allowed to take up insane amounts of volatility; if you accept consumer's money then it would be reasonable to require to put that $25mm as a bond to pay out your debts, and put a ceiling on how much deal volume you're allowed to hold if you've got only tiny amounts such as $25mm.