bitfunder very publicly shut down
if friedcat continued paying to it's addresses, wouldn't that be criminal (or at least sue-worthy)?
just trying to understand the idea that he's doing something other than making a generally responsible move by withholding dividends
if friedcat continued paying to it's addresses, wouldn't that be criminal (or at least sue-worthy)?
just trying to understand the idea that he's doing something other than making a generally responsible move by withholding dividends
Friedcat pays dividends to the owners of ASICMiner shares. The operator of a Passthrough, in this case Ukyo, is the owner of the shares. Legally, FC should pay dividends to Ukyo. That Ukyo used the shares as backing for a PT is of no concern to friedcat.
Morally, however, friedcats decision to hold dividend payments is a good one, in my opinion. But owners of PT shares of any kind should use this as a demonstration why PTs add extra counterparty risk compared to direct shares.
No moral decisions were needed, Ukyo requested that Friedcat withhold the divs himself.
