Remix.run Logo
hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago

I think stories like these highlight the need for clearer (not necessarily more) regulations around contractor/subcontractor/client relationships and what happens when one of them goes tits up.

There were rampant issues in the fintech world that exploded when Synapse, a banking as a service provider, went bankrupt and their ledger didn't match what partner banks had in their accounts. End users were told "your deposits are FDIC insured", but in bankruptcy court the judge was sort of at a loss over how to rectify things - the banks weren't insolvent, and the FDIC (rightfully) said "hey, this isn't our problem, our regulated entities are in compliance". Looks like a similar situation happened here, where the contractors are both doing the "not it" thing.

I feel like a lot of tech innovation and "business process innovation" over the past 15 years was just ignoring regulations that were built up over decades, only discovering the reasons for those regulations when the tide went out and seeing that lots of companies had been pantsless the whole time.

ww520 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Whoever claims "your deposits are FDIC insured" needs to be prosecuted as fraud and scam artists. “Your” the company’s deposits in the bank is FDIC insured. My deposit with you the company is not. When the bank goes belly up, your deposit is FDIC secured up to the account limit which is tiny in the scale of things. When your company goes belly up, my deposit is gone.

recursivecaveat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My understanding is that they split the accounts to keep up with the limit. Otherwise though yeah, FDIC will only step in for the extreme minority scenario of failure by the underlying bank. You absolutely should not be allowed to advertise FDIC insurance unless it goes all the way to the consumer.

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> When the bank goes belly up, your deposit is FDIC secured up to the account limit which is tiny in the scale of things.

The FDIC is meant to protect individual people from loosing all of their money from the collapse of a bank, currently at $250k. If you have more wealth than that yet have it all as cash in a single account, then, you're pretty much an ID10T. For regular mere mortals, that's a helluva lot better than a bank telling you to pound sand when they collapse. If you're a business thinking the gov't is meant to protect you, then you are also delusional.

toofy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> … was just ignoring regulations that were built up over decades, only discovering the reasons for those regulations …

yeah it’s unreal to me how many people who imagine themselves intelligent are just now discovering the equivalent to why we make wheels round.

they never think to ask “why does regulation x exist?”

its absolutely crazypants.

mywittyname 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> they never think to ask “why does regulation x exist?”

They do, but they think the answer is always some riff on, "government overreach because bureaucrats need to justify their jobs."

That attitude has been firmly ingrained into (at least) a generation of people.

Hobadee an hour ago | parent [-]

TBF, a solid 50% of regulation is probably government overreach. The problem is that it's intrinsically tangled with the other 50% (crossing various specializations/laws/departments) that isn't; you can't undo one without undoing both.

wat10000 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Propaganda works.

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you think the laws and regulations are unclear?

This seems to be following the completely standard and expected process.

Contractor goes belly up, so you go to court and a judge who confirms they were a custodian of your data and you are entitled to retreive it.

Same would be the case if I was leasing equipment to someone and they had it at a storage lot. If the middle party dies or goes bankrupt, I get a court order to claim it from their other possessions.

veggieroll an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s already been months in this case. And, court cases often take many years to resolve.

The issue is more that the court is slow and expensive even in the best case.

kmeisthax 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you talk to a lawyer (or, worse, a legislator, many of whom are also lawyers and all of whom are surrounded by them), they will insist up and down that this is a pretty standard custodial arrangement dispute and that the system worked as intended. And I would, very begrudgingly agree with that.

The legal system is perfectly capable of recognizing stolen property no matter how many layers of abstraction you put it through. The problem is always in the fact that the dispute resolution process is too expensive[0] to be useful. If you are defrauded for $10,000; but the legal fees for your representation will exceed that; then that juice ain't worth the squeeze. See also: Bricks and Minifigs.

In the Nine PBS case the judge correctly recognized Iron Mountain as a constructive bailee of Nine PBS's property and created a framework to retrieve their data. The problem is that this took almost half a year of legal work to get to the obvious outcome to make Nine PBS whole.

In Synapse's case, the problem is slightly different, because Synapse is not a bank, they are a reseller of banking services. That's the whole idea behind "fintech[1]" - that we can sell banking services while dodging all the regulatory compliance designed specifically to stop these kinds of issues so long as a real bank is involved. Saying their deposits are FDIC insured is like saying you have auto insurance because you happen to be riding a taxi. Technically correct but misleading and fraudulent. FDIC insurance doesn't cascade into your customers' accounts, because if it did, you'd be a bank.

[0] There's a similar problem with Bitcoin, where only a certain number of transactions can ever be processed per hour and thus it bottlenecks any higher-layer process that intends to use the Bitcoin blockchain as a settlement or dispute resolution system.

[1] "Fintech" in particular is meaningless as all banks are tech companies. They were one of the first adopters of electronic computers, online transaction processing, and a whole load of other things that seem utterly quaint now.

EDIT: changed "years" to "almost half a year", I was too lazy to do another Google search

Jtsummers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The problem is that this took years of legal work to get to the obvious outcome to make Nine PBS whole.

Not years. This whole "saga" has been going on for 5 months, and the suit against Iron Mountain was only filed on 28 July, so it just took weeks to come to this current arrangement.

EDIT: Toned down the comment. Leaving the rest, though, since I can't delete it with the reply below.

kmeisthax an hour ago | parent [-]

I changed it.

emilio2601 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]