Nothing wrong with taking a caution first approach.
However to me most articles about FTX seem like "panic first, research after". Yes SBF's investment company might be fucked, but customers funds should be totally separate from that.
I think that “should” is working really hard there.
We only have to look at the other crypto firms that have gone bust to know this space is rife with problems in that area - lies about FDIC protection, cryptocurrency and tokens considered part of company assets and subject to creditor claims, rather than customer deposits etc.
joyfylbanana|3 years ago
However to me most articles about FTX seem like "panic first, research after". Yes SBF's investment company might be fucked, but customers funds should be totally separate from that.
alasdair_|3 years ago
Sure, and Tether "should be" one-to-one backed by US dollars.
In crypto, a lot of the time the "should be", isn't.
graeme|3 years ago
Crypto isn’t regulated so there is no segregation or protection of customer funds
Also see this: no FDIC insurance, letter from FDIC alleging misrepresentations from FTX: https://twitter.com/ClarityToast/status/1590022331220787201
Nursie|3 years ago
We only have to look at the other crypto firms that have gone bust to know this space is rife with problems in that area - lies about FDIC protection, cryptocurrency and tokens considered part of company assets and subject to creditor claims, rather than customer deposits etc.
I wouldn’t like to rely on that “should”.
sgerenser|3 years ago
dannyw|3 years ago
Second one out, no problem.
Last one out, problem.