Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
yes but they dont have to cover all of it, they have to be seen to cover enough of it that when one or two banks gets into trouble (say the Royal Bank of Scotland) that we don't all run down to the Scotia Bank thinking we have to get there quick in order to protect our savings.
The question/argument I am making is why would we bother extending this kind of expensive government insurance to crypto, it doesn't matter to the economy and it's probably a good thing if the market is so utterly arcane/shady almost no one touches it with a ten foot pole except people who are really knowledgeable, we shouldn't be encouraging people to put their pensions into crypto any more than penny stocks
|
One bank CEO doesn't go and post on Twitter that another bank has liabilities that they can't cover resulting in customer panic.
That is what happened with FTX, and also Crypto.com. In both cases the Binance CEO posted on Twitter that there were 'issues' and it resulted in FUD against both companies. With FTX there were obviously problems, but at some point you can't just throw #### against the wall when it comes to your competitors and hope something sticks.
At the same time, what was going on behind the scene with FTX is insane. Second biggest Democrat Party donor, connections to the SEC, connections to numerous government officials, sex parties, tied together with big business, celebrities, cover of Forbes...etc, etc. Enron x10. And the entire time it was all a scam.