Is there any distinction between coins attributed to Coinbase the exchange (if we collapse your coins are ours), vs Coinbase the “regulated custodian” (lolz) where the assets legally remain owned by the depositing entity?
nostr:npub15604np6ccsk7ugph4nrg7kyq7kpme9lmcn4l0q2xk4yd5d6puu2s00dr0u just sent me this via the Bitcoin And . . . TG.
Be aware.
"Arkham has identified 948,000 BTC on the chain, worth about 25 billion Coinbase BTC reserves, making Coinbase the largest identified BTC entity at the moment, with nearly 5% of the total existing Bitcoin, about the same as Satoshi Nakamoto. — link
(https://platform.arkhamintelligence.com/explorer/entity/coinbase)The majority of this should be client assets. This $25 billion BTC is made up of more than 36 million Coinbase BTC deposit with the largest cold wallet containing approximately 10,000 BTC. Based on recent financial data from Coinbase, Arkham believes there may be thousands of BTC yet to be marked."
Discussion
Now that is a damn fine question but I would presume the answer would be "yes" lest CB flirt with the danger of 'commingling' of funds between two separate, legal entities. The custody side has to be separate from the exchange side.
Yep, i too understand that’s what is SUPPOSED to happen .. but given the failure of two “regulated custodians” recently, and (GBTC)/Coinbase’s lack of transparency/inability to confirm GBTC’s alleged spot holdings .. kinda makes public verification more important .. and therefore whether funds are comingled so important
Coinbase hasn’t exhibited trustworthy behaviour imo 🤷♂️