Hacker News Reader

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

Which leads to one of two scenarios:

1) They knew SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to lie about it anyway

2) They weren't competent enough to assess the risk that SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to launch anyway without contacting the SIPC

Regardless of which is the truth, I wouldn't trust my money with someone who does either. Might as well jump into a tried-and-true pyramid scheme like bitcoin!

View on HN

In an interview yesterday, the CEO said they were an "Engineering first company". While located in silicon valley, they have no right to subscribe to the "move fast and break things" mentality when they are playing with people's money. Any financial institution that holds external accounts should be a finance first company. Good technology is essential, but not as essential as following rules and regulations to protect your customers.

Apparently they purposely called it a "checking & savings" account because they were well aware that technically it is neither a "checking" nor a "savings" account and that a "checking & savings" account does not really exist to protect themselves from accusations of false claims...

They are still claiming it is SIPC insured- which is false, regardless of what you call it.

It's not necessarily false - that's up for various attorneys to decide.

Technically true, but irrelevant. Everything might be up for attorneys and judges to decide.

also option 3) Very unlikely scenario that they outsmarted everyone and had some great legal work done to identify a loophole in the SIPC insurance requirements that nobody else has yet identified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com