As someone pointed out, if they made a typo, or if there was a malicious insider, it would cost them 6B to make this transaction.
The cost of a transaction also includes the probability of making a mistake times the cost of that mistake. The probability of making a mistake here is not zero.
Yes, Citi did. They couldn't revert the transaction because they accidentally paid off the full value of a debt when making an interest rate payment on behalf of a client, and the law says that repayment of a debt does not need to be returned in case of error.
Yes, but as another poster pointed out, their problem was that they owed their counterparty money. The courts ruled that early accidental repayment of a debt did not have to be returned.
If they wired me 6 billion dollars, I would not get to keep it.
>>If they wired me 6 billion dollars, I would not get to keep it.
And this is why Crypto is unlikely to see wide use for large, legitimate transactions.
The legal concept of ownership is based on the intent and understandings of real humans amongst each other, and with each other's consent. It is technology independent. There are legal remedies to fix mistakes and unwind transactions. This is critically important for people feeling comfortable engaging in these transactions. If a typo can cost you your life savings, you're going to have a tough time moving forward.
Crypto does not have this. It would be like paying for something with a briefcase full of cash that you leave behind the third trashcan on the right. Or was it the second one on the left?
Anyone transacting crypto with an entity that shares a legal jurisdiction is going to have the exact same legal remedies for fraudulent or mistaken transactions. Just because a transaction is settled in crypto doesn’t mean the counterparties are magically transported to an extralegal universe with no possible remedies.
The extra risk that crypto carries is a risk of “black hole” transactions—your mistake causes the money to be vaporized. There are many ways to avoid such a mistake, and I’d argue that the rate of accidental unspendable transactions is vanishingly low which would imply that this is basically a solved problem.
I think that’s a valid point about large legitimate transactions. But I think crypto has a valid use for medium legitimate transactions, for example, buying a car off Craigslist or sending money to your family overseas
And stock in Amazon wasn't worth money until it was! Not defending Tether but just naming something unrelated and not even trying to argue similarity is pretty low effort and not compelling.
