Yes … so did FTX … and so did Coinbase itself a while back. It has no bearing over legal ch11 or ch7 bankruptcy procedures. You’re confusing ownership while in operation with ownership during bankruptcy – the latter is what counts if the company enters ch11/ch7, which is the point I raised. ToS is not legal protection during bk proceedings (as proven by the FTX ch11 case, as well as admitted by Coinbase too). I’m not disputing that the user has beneficial ownership of deposited funds in coinbase now, i’m disputing your assertion that they will remain beneficial owners during bk proceedings too.
You guys do whatever you want, but your users may feel mislead down the line.
… now you’re adding nuance (which should have been there in your initial report) but it should still be made clearer that the ToS does not serve as legal protection during bk proceedings, and as such there really isn’t any guarantee of users being able to recover the assets in full and in kind if the company enters bk, especially when past precedents actually paint the opposite picture (see FTX, or Celsius who also had a Custody product with the same ToS and during ch11 proceedings creditors were told “tough luck, you’ll get a 30% haircut”)
I am still fully in favor of onboarding cbBTC, and cbBTC will be th only wrapped BTC asset I will trust (*) for myself, but my point is that it is still pertinent (not just fair) to point out the actual risks, or else you expose yourself to valid criticism down the line.
(*) “trust” being used loosely… I haven’t seen an audit of these contracts, it would be laughable if cbBTC was hacked, but interesting to see how Coinbase would deal with it.
Isn’t 450 supply cap too low? It will likely be filled very quickly, which won’t leave much to analyze in terms of behavior and usage of the pool, but more importantly, leaves the pool rather inaccessible for the majority of users … what’s thew rationale for such a low cap? new asset notwithstanding, I understand the trust comes from the brand, not the track record
The pool is practically useless with such a low cap. It was increased from 450 to 900 (without a vote) and it filled immediately again, so why not set it to an actually useful level?
There is no need for a vote. It’s in the risk steward process integrated. And at Aave we are taking security serious. That’s why for assets that are new and might inherit risk our risk manager decide to go the cautious way. The caps are right now again being discussed to be increased and everyone will be able to deposit their cbBTC. Better be safe than sorry.
It’s just people trying to pretend they are doing a “risk analysis” to justify their jobs and keep being a parasite of the platform.
If anything, keeping the cbBTC supply capped is actually a HIGHER risk to Aave b/c it’s preventing people from swapping from JS coin to Coinbase coin which would result in MUCH LOWER risk to Aave.
These so called “risk managers” are just amateur kids playing with crayons.
… that would help prevent WBTC from depegging (WBTC-BTC charts haven’t been looking great since Aug 9). The 60 days notice is coming to an end in less than 2 weeks. WBTC holders can then say hello to Justin Sun, instead of good bye.
A 10 billion worth asset is partnering with a chinese crook … and people still wonder why serious folks still don’t take crypto seriously. Sure, there is bigger corruption in fiat, but at least don’t pretend to be upset that crypto doesn’t take off. Mike Belshe and BitGo lost my respect and trust (in all their services). I liked BitGo.
