Traditional Finance solved this problem hundreds of years ago...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lost-my-1930...
Should I post more examples? Because I can assure you that there are plenty more.
I am as happy as the next person to take pot shots at crypto currencies and their ilk. But how about we stay honest about the fact that traditional finance is far from benign and more than happy to use and abuse us customers to their liking?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/citibank-just-go...
It's important to note that they didn't just send it to some random company, but rather to creditors.
> Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back.
> But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn't have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it's free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.
From their perspective, protection from chargebacks is protection from fraud.
> Recap:
> - cryptodotcom sent 320k ETH to Gate
> - Gate sends 285k back
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/business/citibank-revlon-laws...
Citigroup Inc is entitled to recoup about $500 million of its own money that it accidentally wired Revlon Inc lenders three years early, a U.S. appeals court said on Thursday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was improper to give the lenders a "huge windfall" by letting them keep Citigroup's money, and that they had been on notice the wiring was a mistake.
Some people care more about the property of being non-inflationary than they do about the property of transaction reversibility.
Edit: Why the downvote? You caring more about reversibility doesn't mean it's a universally shared value.
In this case, it may be the snark. I recently fell victim to this myself a couple months ago. It’s very easy to be snarky without really meaning to; doubly so about topics you care deeply about. The “low, low cost” bit is hard to read as anything else. (It’s what kept me from giving your comment a deserved upvote, because you’re right. But the conversational quality supersedes merely being right.)