[s73v3r_]

I would phrase that another way. It's fine to break things if you can make whole the people who are negatively affected by breaking things. Someone getting their money returned after it was stolen from your startup bank is one thing, but that person missing their car payment and having their car repo'ed because of that missing money, and thus not being able to make it to work and getting fired is another.

[abakker]

Exactly- I was trying, dryly, to be tongue in cheek. As the example you gave illustrates well, covering risk almost never includes second order consequences, it is part of the “limited liability” that companies get. Unfortunately, customers tend not to be informed well enough to reason through these possibilities up front. We never know exactly what will break, or how we might be effected by that breakage.