Hacker News Reader

> Yeah, but shouldn't they try to pay people back before they spend what's likely tens of thousands of dollars on what amounts to superficial marketing?

"Should" based on the assumption that they are profit-maximizing entity, or "should" based on the assumption that they are a moral actor? Because, you know, the answers are quite different.

I think that "should" is based on "wanting to avoid prosecution for operating while insolvent".

It's fertile breeding grounds for conspiracy theories, so I'm not going to post my elaborate speculation here. I'll just summarise it as "there are several people working at Mt. Gox and they're probably not very good at talking to one another".

They SHOULD pay secured creditors which could include domain provider. I dont imagine its customers are SECURED .. so will be last .. in a proper insolvency..