It seems very unlikely they have $3-6B lying around ready to repay customer deposits. At the very least this would be catastrophic for them if they do lose all that money.
Have they re-enabled withdrawals yet? If I were a customer I'd be taking everything out as soon as possible.
For Binance? I’d actually say very likely. They’d need to move a couple of papers around, but should be easy.
withdrawals have been paused since Thursday night. binance says it will reopen them in stages from Sunday and publish proof of reserves by Monday, which is the thing that would actually answer your question.
Funds have been already allocated for recovery by the CEO Richard Teng.
Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, were previously sued for willfully evading anti-money laundering (AML) controls. In that instance, the government ruled their compliance failures were not an accident, but a deliberate criminal enterprise. Binance paid $4.3 billion in fines and forfeitures to settle with the DOJ, CFTC, and FinCEN in November 2023.
Next time this happens to Binance though they won't have an emergency fund and possibly they'll be in debt, and that's when the users will be very screwed.
Their terrible security certainly indicates to me that future of Binance is not going to be a pretty one unless they make some enormous changes.
Note that “crime” has a specific definition in law. You don’t have to be a criminal (commit a crime) to be rightfully sued, civil suits are a thing.
Anyway, your parent comment already answered the question, they would be sued by negligence.
Only the government (e.g., federal, state, local) may bring a criminal suit.[1] But in both civil / criminal cases they are still a suit under the law seeking some form of ordered relief from the Court.
Essentially, you can think of "criminal" as a category of law and relief (e.g., prison) that is only accessible to the government.
Both the government and citizens may bring "civil" suits. Very generally, the remedies in civil suits are a court order to 1) stop doing a thing; 2) to do a thing required by law / agreement; 3) to transfer property, usually but not always money, from one party to another; or 4) to define a set of rules governing the parties going forward.
[1] There may be some obscure exception to this, but it is true for everything I've ever seen / heard of.
I can't imagine thinking that banks won't lose your money. You live in a complete fantasy world.
If you live in Argentina, I sympathize and I take your point.
>The general assumption is that it would require the US government to collapse for your checking account to vanish, in which case you'd probably have larger problems to worry about.
See USSR-Russia transition in 1990-1992 for example.
Accounts didn't vanish, but all people's money where used to cover the deficit
People who essentially want government guarantees for their money should just buy government bonds.
Not with simple account deposits, no
Basel rules are still a thing
Customers stop monitoring their bank, when deposits are insured.
Crypto 'banks' need orders of magnitude more security and it's not a trivial problem.
No, it's not. At least not historically.
Sorry, what do you mean?
Basically, the historical origins of different bank regulations are quite complicated and also differ from place to place, and they were often put in place by (political) coalitions of people who already had not one single motivation but a whole spectrum of them.
And then in addition to historical reasons, you also need to ask why things are still in place. Inertia is one answer, but it's not the only one.
To understand the regulatory framework for banks, the best place to start is the BIS and Basel III. https://www.bis.org/committees/bcbs/standards Generally speaking, international banks follow Basel III in addition to their domestic regulators’ capital requirements (which are probably also derived from Basel III, but have differences just to make things tedious).
However, BIS and Basel III (and the previous Basels) are just what's currently in force for most of the world. I suspect most people would be better served by more of an historical overview. But it also depends on what one is interested in.
Sorry, what do you mean?
-- think that's referring to bank deposit insurance schemes...
US banks tend to meet AT1 requirements by issuing preferred shares.
Binance's approach seems to be based on vibes and a vague promise
When everything goes wrong the only defense is to be slow enough to fix it.
This idea that there are shortcuts that you can be decentralised and fast at any size is wrong.
I would assume binance is more like a bad bank but without the internal friction to make stuff like this hard.
Yes. Move fast and break things and forget governance... Cryptocurrency has always been dumb. You either con people out of their money or you lose yours.
I had someone approach me in 2017 or so because he wanted to do a rugpull coin operation. I said I was busy and didn't help, but I'd probably be much richer (and a piece of shit human) if I got involved.
Regulations probably help but they basically serve to keep evolutionary memory in place in a corporate ecosystem where companies can spawn from nothing.
Bad banks no longer exist but regulations, after an extinction event, perhaps try to make that evolutionary event permanent.
At least that is my mental model.
Regulations are very lagging. And they should be understood to create moats and friction. There is no free lunch. Regulations purposefully shrink or destroy markets. That is how markets work.
Something I wish tech folks would absorb more.
If it's not frustrating and stupid, (to you at the time) it's probably not really a regulation.
This is a funny take on things, and untrue. But traditional finance is way safer and better controlled than the crypto frontier. Someone like coffeezilla has to rely on patreon and ad revenue to do the sort of journalism that exposes how debased cryptocurrency finance is. There should be much more money in exposing the fraud, but our premier capitalists are complicit in the fraud. They are fraudsters at heart, which is why they have the money and influence they do.
> Regulations purposefully shrink or destroy markets.
Sometimes maybe, but that's a matter of corruption. Regulatory capture has been used to create regulation that protects monopolies, duopolies, and the broader oligarchy for a very long time. When politicians were representatives of their voters, things worked better. Post-citizens united, the incentives are broken and we have a congress full of duplicitous, self-interested idiots.