Replying to Avatar Judge Hardcase

It seems it couldn't be mere coincidence that the $250K threshold matches the FDIC limit... maybe they have private insurance that's set up to match the same expectations as a fiat bank... or maybe they just figure that someone with more than $250K would be willing to pay more because they perceive it as better than the uninsured fiat alternative.

BTW, this just sounds like a lie (at least, it's grossly misleading):

"You have full control of your bitcoin (not a custodian)"

Sorry, having to rely on 2 entities other than yourself to sign any of your transactions can't reasonably be considered 'full' control.
Avatar
mike 1y ago

Agree đź’Ż

You giving up your keys is never “full control”

But I guess for some at least, we need to build trust models on top of Bitcoins “trustless” model.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Judge Hardcase 1y ago

Totally. Everything else makes it clear what the deal is... they could have just left out the 'full control' fiction. It makes it seem like they're trying to pull one over on someone who doesn't necessarily know better (i.e. their target audience).