|
|
|
|
|
by graeme
1320 days ago
|
|
Coinbase has those assets listed nice and separately but that is unlikely to hold up in bankruptcy court. 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. |
|
Show me the precedent where bankruptcy courts considered depositors as general creditors, since you are so sure that’s what will happen.
2) Will you please please please read the balance sheet.
As a favor to me?
In it you will see that of Coinbase’s $105bn in liabilities, $101bn of it is owed to depositors. That is offset by $101bn of depositor assets.
So even in your worst case scenario, depositors get what, a <4% haircut?
I’d love to see the number of FTX depositors who’d take that deal rn…
EDIT: Maybe this will help. What’s special about Coinbase isn’t the fact that deposits are a line item on their balance sheet (FTX did the same), it’s that Coinbase actually keeps the assets.
So whereas FTX not only lost solvency in its core business, it also lost solvency in deposits, Coinbase can only lose solvency on its core business, which is minuscule relative to the scale of deposits.