Hacker News Reader

Comment by otoburb | Hacker News Reader

>>“It could’ve been a trillion-dollar company,” Vessenes said. “It’s so sad.” The current $16 billion CoinLab claim against Mt. Gox is based on what the company thinks their portion of Mt. Gox would be worth if it had been managed well, he said.

Quoting this part of the article to emphasize the absurdity of CoinLab's assertion.

>>Peter Vessenes has spent years trying to recoup lost coins

This article byline is strange because the CoinLab claim is entirely for cash/fiat damages, and not for the remaining cryptocurrency that the estate holds. Creditors know this because CoinLab's claim is evidently still incurring delay and interest, which the Tokyo District Court only affords to monetary Mt. Gox claims.

View on HN

If the US part of Mt. Gox was managed well it would today be... Coinbase? Which is soon to be worth $63B.

Coinbase didn't need Mt. Gox to become what they are today. I'm not sure this line of reasoning holds much water.

Perhaps if we were to follow Vessennes' absurd chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion, CoinLab itself should be countersued by Mt. Gox creditors for failing to become as successful as Coinbase given their head start in the US.

Coinbase did need something like Mt. Gox to become what they are today, but not in the sense you imply. The whole Mt. Gox episode opened people's eyes up to the fact that large institutional frauds could take place with their Bitcoin wealth, and that there indeed was a need for a well managed reputable provider for these services. Bad actors can come in many sizes, and a bad actor of Mt. Gox scale also brought about plenty of controversy and media attention that was heaped on this subject. It benefited Coinbase in no small part to capitalize on this already acknowledged need for a business.

I think Coinbase is successful because it's the "default" exchange for noobs in the US. Mt. Gox was the default exchange until it failed and if it had never failed (which is a longshot assumption, granted) then it would probably still be the default, largest, and most valuable US exchange today. (Of course, non-US exchanges like BitMEX are far larger because they offer more "exciting" products.)

CoinLab itself should be countersued by Mt. Gox creditors for failing to become as successful as Coinbase given their head start in the US.

CoinLab's deal with Mt. Gox was never consummated so they did not have any head start.

Coinbase is successful because it was the fist exchange that did things by the book and has a well deserved reputation for competence and law abiding conduct.

IIRC, Brian Armstrong (CEO coinbase) was at the top of the MtGox volume leaderboard, because he relied them for Coinbase's retail exchange.

The absurd hypothetical that CoinLab could have been Coinbase in some strange parallel universe should not take priority in the bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings over the claims of Mt. Gox users who held actual dollar/cryptocurrency assets on the exchange.

CoinLab's lawsuit has delayed the distribution process and their absurd claims are part of the reason why creditors with actual legitimate claims (i.e. Mt. Gox users) are still waiting for the remaining assets to be distributed.

It is like the bank has robbery and 20% of the money is stolen, but instead of distributing the 80% among the customers, it is given to the bank's US partner that said "oh hey we could've been the next big bank in the US if the other bank didn't get robbed".

I know very little about this but shouldn’t customer deposits be handled separately from other creditors? Why should CoinLab get anything?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com