[devnulll]

Why is crypto.com able to retrieve their funds in this case, but crypto hacks around the world result in customers being told there's no recourse? Doesn't appear crypto.com paid back the $34M that was stolen from customers in the hack a few months back.

The crypto crowd sure like regulations at the most unexpected times.

[gzer0]

Crypto.com fully reimbursed all 483 accounts that were hacked [1].

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/01/20/cryptocom-says-...

[3np]

> Why is crypto.com able to retrieve their funds in this case, but crypto hacks around the world result in customers being told there's no recourse?

A business mistakenly sending an obviously excessive refund to a customer over a normal wire transfer is not a new phenomenon. There is precedence, courts are familiar with it, and the parties are few and identified. Exchanges getting custodied digital assets stolen is not really comparable from a legal perspective.

(Answering your actual question of "why..", not addressing if this makes sense or is right)

> Doesn't appear crypto.com paid back the $34M that was stolen from customers in the hack a few months back.

They did AFAIK.

> The crypto crowd sure like regulations at the most unexpected times.

What are you referring to here exactly? Who likes what regulation?

[peyton]

> Exchanges getting custodied digital assets stolen is not really comparable from a legal perspective.

What’s different? Have talked to a few lawyers about this and still am unclear.

[Someone]

The ability to revert transactions is a well-known feature of regular bank transactions, and that’s what this is about.

[ratg13]

No transactions are being reverted, such a thing is not even possible if 7 months have passed.

This is being handled by the courts.

Please read the article before commenting.

[netsharc]

Technically grandparent comment is not wrong: it's an ability to revert, via courts. Meanwhile (some) crypto-bros scream "With cryptocurrencies, we'll no longer have intervening governments or courts, that'll be utopia!"...

[MichaelBurge]

Because companies go bankrupt by not having the money, while the woman bought a house approximately equal in value to the cash.

If she had gambled it all at the casino, they'd have no recourse either: She might go to jail, but they wouldn't get their money back.

[fierro]

the highest EV outcome for her was to hit the Wynn

[olliej]

Because despite what monopoly says “bank error in your favour” doesn’t entitle you to that money.