|
|
|
|
|
by RC_ITR
1319 days ago
|
|
I don’t want to cite Dunning-Kruger, but Coinbase’s core business model (if you looked at their balance sheet as I suggested) leads to them segregating customer assets from everything else (there’s a special line with a footnote and everything). Those assets line up exactly with the liability line for deposits. If you’re even a little bit familiar with bankruptcy law, you know that those depositors are the top of the stack (by a mile) and part of the reason Coinbase scores so low on those tests you cite is because the customer deposits get ignored (since they legally can’t touch them). This is different from A) FTX which lent out those customer deposits irresponsibly and B) Thinking they are a good business whose corporate debt I want to buy. Like I said in my original comment, that’s a stupid/weird business model that no one else follows because it’s so stupid and weird! It’s also based on a Ponzi scheme! But anyway… |
|
SEC specifically forced Coinbase to disclose the following:
“ "Because custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings and such customers could be treated as our general unsecured creditors”
“Deposits” legally are a banking term and coinbase is not a bank.
The money given to Coinbase is more akin to a gift card balance. Starbucks segregates customer gift balances on its balance sheet but if they go bankrupt gift card holders are in line with other unsecured creditors.