by kkm on 11/13/22, 3:46 PM with 20 comments
by SilverBirch on 11/14/22, 10:56 AM
The problem is we all know that this really doesn't mean anything. One of the funnier stories that went round this week was that in an effort to shore up their reputation one company actually published an address for their deposits that highlighted they'd accidentally sent a huge amount out of that address and then brought it back, when questioned they claimed they'd sent the transaction in error and the recipient later returned it. The obvious shell game being played here - you send the money over, they do the audit, you send it back, suddenly two insolvent companies both pass audits.
It's just unfortunate because we all kind of know, you can't really trust these audits, because audits only really work when the people are being audited aren't highly motivated scam artists. Even if the funds do currently exist and are safe now, that doesn't help you if they disappear next week. The question isn't "are the funds there right now" the question is "can we trust you" and the answer is probably no.
by adam_arthur on 11/14/22, 5:01 AM
Are those assets cash or cash equivalents? If not then they aren’t really backed at all.
Saw a tweet from the kraken CEO stating they didn’t have exotic things on their balance sheet, only things like bitcoin. Well a bitcoin backing is pretty much just as bad.
Do they convert customer deposits to bitcoin or not?
by abbadadda on 11/13/22, 8:31 PM
by Stention314 on 11/13/22, 10:00 PM
Mmhhh regulation to protect consumers... Mmhhh how could we make this possible? Sounds unrealistic to regulate something as big as a financial sector.
Perhaps PoR could be a solution to something so unregulatable? Or perhaps just use what we have fine-tunes the last 100 years?...
by ilrwbwrkhv on 11/14/22, 2:33 AM
by rdtwo on 11/13/22, 5:46 PM