Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Wasn't FTX considered a reputable custodian before it imploded? That's been my understanding but I didn't pay much attention before it went belly up.



This actually gets into "regulated" vs "buyer beware" banking markets. And crypto is still a "buyer beware" market where reputation can be bought with super bowl ads. And then getting "glowing" reviews from the crypto press on their sudden "success".

True custodial banks could in fact be fraudulent for allow e know. But they don't buy super bowl ads to buy reputation -- they've earned it over the course of decades.

Real banking should be boring.


They did have a fairly clean brand, but I wouldn't compare them to say Anchorage, which is a US-based bank and qualified custodian. There are more regulatory as well as technical protections with a firm like Anchorage.

I would compare FTX to say Tastyworks. Clean brand, but they're not a bank, not insured, and not focused on custody, so it wouldn't really be prudent to store idle cash or crypto with them.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: