Since River does this now
As does Strike and that's just among Bitcoin-onlys.
I guess the issue is that they want to be super duper conservative and operate as if btc is a traditional asset subject to those rules?
It's an explanation. Having customer funds migrate regularly doesn't seem very conservative, but its not like they chose that. It is conservative from a regulatory perspective though.
From the article it sounds like trust just handles funds in transit. Sounds like a tough biz.
It's an explanation.
Haha, I sense you're not on board with it. Do you have something else in mind?
reply
Nothing devious. It does sound a bit spun though. For a company that so vividly documents the failure of others, a lonely appeal to precedents feels lacking.
When you have ten seconds to maintain a customer's trust, it makes sense. A lot of their business is on the line.
reply
'pending regulatory approval' - must be a tough gig fr
reply