Discussion
Binance hasn’t REcovered $6B+, it’s COVERING it (reimbursing customers from company funds). Some was frozen, but Binance is not likely to recover even half.
Bad headlines like this are a big part of why I started covering crypto. Generalist reporters on deadline far too often end up repeating company spin.
@forced_gump they’re saying that the company funds are held in the same asset that they’re replacing. For example, they already held ETH that they’ll use to replace the stolen ETH, without having to convert it from some other asset.
@molly0xfff #Knords fleeced a bunch of #crypto wankers. 🤷🏻♂️ #FAFO #Binance
@molly0xfff What I don't understand is, why any losses are the customers' to begin with and need to be covered explicitly. Wouldn't customer funds and Binance's own funds be all in the same wallet(s), and anyone's balance is just a data base entry? It would seem natural to me that the losses get booked on their own balance entry, and at no time have customer funds, or balances be affected.
@molly0xfff I wonder how much there is to cover. It apparently makes around £500m a year in profit, so absorbing that much has got to hurt.
The company assets, which could easily cover it, are presumably owned by other people..
@molly0xfff "Covering" aka, passing the cost on to future customers? k...
@molly0xfff How the fuck do they have this much money to just throw away at a moment's notice? Apple's war chest is less than $150b and it's huge.
@molly0xfff@hachyderm.io yeah that Reuters falls for this is unforgivable. I mean it’s a technically challenging subject but to explain how a deficit is “recovered” is really much more an accounting 101 issue
@ssiekmann In my experience, a lot of journalists are still pretty unwilling to believe that companies will just lie. And that’s a particularly bad perspective to hold when you’re covering the crypto sector.
@molly0xfff @ssiekmann That's an especially depressing blind spot because it seems like it should be the most familiar part. 'Crypto' likes to exaggerate how much the math really matters; but there are details there that you would expect a finance reporter to need to read up on if they want to get into the weeds. "Shady things happen on quasi-securities markets and people do perjury and fraud sometimes" seem like much more universal concepts.
![Tweet by Binance @binance Oct 30 Binance has begun [begun highlight] recovering [end highlight] affected assets for users and continues to work with law enforcement, issuers, blockchain intelligence firms and industry partners to trace, freeze and recover additional funds. The company has already publicly committed to cover losses through company funds in the prior announcement. [begin highlight] Binance has already reserved over $6.34B of company funds to cover this incident. [end highlight] $5B of these funds are already held in the exact token assets that were impacted. We are completing the purchase of the remaining amount by buying token assets through market channels and OTC channels. We are doing this to match the format of the remaining token assets and address any asset shortfalls. This step can take longer because some tokens may have low liquidity and OTC settlement also takes time. We will share more progress as soon as we can. These figures do not include frozen or protected assets, which remain subject to ongoing recovery and verification. Currently, $3bn has been frozen, with thanks to our industry partners. We are working with partners and law enforcement to recover the frozen assets.We will continue to use company resources to cover confirmed shortfall and will provide further verified updates as recovery efforts progress. Ultimately, all user funds will be ve](https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/117/541/984/429/284/706/original/9ac9ff3196abe39f.png)
@molly0xfff the sentence after the one you highlighted says that $5B of the lost assets are the exact token assets that were lost. Why is that not considered recovered? What am I missing? Not supporting them or saying you're wrong, just confused.