[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.