Quote
So why read malevolence into what could more easily described as incompetence? especially if you have little to no evidence to back up your less likely scenarios?
Questioning their solvency is rational whether one assumed malfeasance _or_ incompetence. The evidence that they had a major loss directly backs this suspicion for this particular exchange.
Whether they are thieves or bumbling idiots matters little - either is a disqualifier for entrusting them with _my_ funds.
Yeah right.. in other words you have no evidence beyond the fact that they were hacked in August and that their "hack" story in August was implausible in your view. In other words, some of their subsequent behavior to stay open, to not run away with the funds and to engage in various innovative pay back resolution carries little to no weight with you, and instead you want to focus on some narrow situation and lack of evidence for your current assertions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJX1REQB12o
Whether they are thieves or bumbling idiots matters little - either is a disqualifier for entrusting them with _my_ funds.
In other words, you have no fucking evidence beyond some feelings that you have that included suspicions about their August 2016 situation. Great. Makes no fucking sense, but great.
And, yeah, like I already mentioned, on a personal level, you can choose how much, if any, money to put at risk in using their system.
Part of my earlier points in responding to these seemingly baseless allegations is that the mere fact that Bitfinex is having troubles with its banks does not, in itself, rise to the level of some kind of conspiracy to defraud, run away or even evidence of insolvency... even if you may have a variety of other reasons or feelings not to trust them.
Jeeze, you have an outstanding reading comprehension problem.
))
