Should I post more examples? Because I can assure you that there are plenty more.
I am as happy as the next person to take pot shots at crypto currencies and their ilk. But how about we stay honest about the fact that traditional finance is far from benign and more than happy to use and abuse us customers to their liking?
It's important to note that they didn't just send it to some random company, but rather to creditors.
> Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back.
> But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn't have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it's free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.
This solution is also a major source of chargeback fraud, FWIW. The people who get screwed from that aren't financial institutions, it's merchants - often small mom and pop shops that lack the resources of predatory multinational corporations to challenge this type of activity.
From their perspective, protection from chargebacks is protection from fraud.
Well, show me these mom and pop shops (that aren't dark web drug dealers or porn sellers) that won't accept credit cards and will only accept crypto payments. Despite the chargeback fraud (an entirely different problem than what this thread was discussing, by the way) basically nobody has abandoned credit cards and gone crypto-only.
Which is what happened here. I imagine traditionally one bank asks the other bank to reverse the transaction. Here one exchange asks the other exchange to reverse the transaction.
Citigroup Inc is entitled to recoup about $500 million of its own money that it accidentally wired Revlon Inc lenders three years early, a U.S. appeals court said on Thursday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was improper to give the lenders a "huge windfall" by letting them keep Citigroup's money, and that they had been on notice the wiring was a mistake.
It’s hard not to complain about downvotes, but worthwhile. The goal is to write for an audience, and to foster curious conversation. Sometimes votes reflect that, sometimes not, but we always have control of what we ourselves write.
In this case, it may be the snark. I recently fell victim to this myself a couple months ago. It’s very easy to be snarky without really meaning to; doubly so about topics you care deeply about. The “low, low cost” bit is hard to read as anything else. (It’s what kept me from giving your comment a deserved upvote, because you’re right. But the conversational quality supersedes merely being right.)
Sure, but you are not forced to use shitcoins. There will naturally be some cryptocurrencies that are worse than others, just as there are FIAT currencies worse than others (e.g. Venezuelan Bolivar vs the Swiss Franc). Consumers being given a greater choice offers opportunity for them to choose to use currencies with superior qualities than the ones they would otherwise have access to. Like with other choices in life generally, the consumer has a responsibility to make an informed choice. While failing to do so has adverse effects for the consumer, it is not the fault of the currency that the consumer made an uninformed or poor choice, no?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lost-my-1930...
Should I post more examples? Because I can assure you that there are plenty more.
I am as happy as the next person to take pot shots at crypto currencies and their ilk. But how about we stay honest about the fact that traditional finance is far from benign and more than happy to use and abuse us customers to their liking?