An e-mail notification wouldn't have been sufficient or really meaningful. 1/

Because most of us are not acting most of the time in a role of financial professional, defaults on most financial products have to be paternalistically protective. A regime of disclosure and caveat emptor is not sufficient for anything that presents itself as an ordinary savings product. 2/

In the article that kicked this off, people held funds in what they did not believe to be a crypto exchange, right? This infrastructure was used, from many customers' perspective, for ordinary savings. (Is that wrong?) 3/

I understand that it's been frustrating for crypto-affiliated businesses that crypto's gray status limits the range and quality of their banking relationships. But that has been a fact of the world. It imposes real obligations and limitations. 4/

An implication is that perhaps you simply *can't* be both a crypto product and effectively a custodian of ordinary savings. If you are going be a front end for people's saving, you need a quality back end, and crypto affiliation might unduly limit the range and quality available. 5/

You can bristle against that. But it doesn't excuse going with and failing adequately to supervise a sketch banking partner that will intermingle your customers' money with its own prior losses and embezzlements. /fin