[shanebellone]

I disagreed with you until: "...like calling Fort Knox just like any other bank vault."

Interesting point that teeters on false equivalence. I think AWS or Azure might make for a better analogy. Your point identifies the inherent risk of actually operating a platform business. A bank vault is (mostly) synonymous with Cloud, in this context. If a vault is robbed or a cloud goes offline, losses extend beyond the business which inherently compounds the severity of downtime.

Linear loss vs. parabolic loss.

[btown]

But if a cloud goes offline, there is damage to the economy linear to the length and breadth of the outage. Sure, there are losses to businesses serviced by the cloud's users, but they'll bounce back, even if a day-long outage was so severe as to temporarily ground flights and halt supply chains.

If a stock exchange executes trades at incorrect prices, even for a short amount of time, all of a sudden you're in a kind of non-linear sigmoid regime, where investor confidence can suddenly tip into panic selling and recessions can be triggered. Thankfully, that didn't happen here, but it could have. If you're going to give a company that power, you should better hope that they're held to higher standards than most dysfunctional tech organizations!

[shanebellone]

"If a stock exchange executes trades at incorrect prices, even for a short amount of time, all of a sudden you're in a kind of non-linear sigmoid regime, where investor confidence can suddenly tip into panic selling and recessions can be triggered."

This is false equivalence and slippery slope.