Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

investvoyager.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 245 posts

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

lamontcg wrote: post #86
dragonwriter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as whole is less than $250k. Usually, no As an insurer, sure, $250K per account owner per ownership class. (Notably, single and joint accounts are separate ownership categories, so with proper distribution of balances, a married couple with single and joint accounts at one institution, is covered up to $1,000,000 in total. $250k each in the individual category, and $250k each in the joint category. But it a…

For a single individual are savings and checking accounts considered separate accounts?

> For a single individual are savings and checking accounts considered separate accounts?

Insurance limits are not by account, they are by account ownership category. Checking and savings account held as single accounts are all part of the same ownership category:

https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/brochures/d...

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#92

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

woodruffw wrote: post #63
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite you to look at the list of failed banks provided by the FDIC: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... Notice that the vast majority of these are smaller, local or regional banks.

Pointing to the list of failed banks from the website of the government agency that insures them and makes customers whole doesn't convey as strong of a point as you might have intended.

I think it perfectly well makes the point that regional banks are much more likely to practice poor risk management and fail than larger banks. If your goal is "boring banking", having to have the FDIC come in and arrange a sale of your bank is ... not it?

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#93

Post by notch656a »

mh- wrote: post #58
alangibson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're definitely going to need details on this.

from the parent comment > depends where you live I infer they live somewhere without a stable financial system and/or government.

Nah the IRS has frozen bank accounts multiple times merely because people owned cash businesses where they made sub-10k deposits on the regular without any intention to structure it. It's frighteningly easy to lose access to your bank account in the US.

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#94

Post by pkulak »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #67
woodruffw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing to the list of failed banks from the website of the government agency that insures them and makes customers whole doesn't convey as strong of a point as you might have intended.

> makes customers whole *As long as whole is less than $250k.

Folks with more than 250k know not to put any of it over the bounds of the FDIC.

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#95

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

adrr wrote: post #69
marcell wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports They claim 85% cash/cash equivalents, 15% less liquid assets. Cash equivalents is broken down also, 55% is Treasury bonds.

Thats meaningless unless it's an audited by a top 4 firm.

You mean like Earnst & Young who was just fined $100 million for overlooking cheating by their employees on the ETHICS portion of the CPA exam? I agree something is severely broken about Tether, but it’s also clear that auditing firms can be crooked, too. I would not trust an audit to expose Tethers shortcomings. After all, the auditors can only report on the documentation provided to them … they specifically do not determine the legitimacy or validity of the documents provided (iow, false documents are not vetted in any way).

Remember WireCard’s fraud? If not:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal

E&Y: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ernst-26-young-cheat...

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#96

Post by mh- »

notch656a wrote: post #93
mh- wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from the parent comment > depends where you live I infer they live somewhere without a stable financial system and/or government.

Nah the IRS has frozen bank accounts multiple times merely because people owned cash businesses where they made sub-10k deposits on the regular without any intention to structure it. It's frighteningly easy to lose access to your bank account in the US.

But that's not at all what happened in the thread we're replying to..

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#97

Post by AmericanChopper »

pkulak wrote: post #94
AmericanChopper wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> makes customers whole *As long as whole is less than $250k.

Folks with more than 250k know not to put any of it over the bounds of the FDIC.

$250k is only just a home down payment in a lot of cities.

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#98

Post by Tool_of_Society »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #67
woodruffw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing to the list of failed banks from the website of the government agency that insures them and makes customers whole doesn't convey as strong of a point as you might have intended.

> makes customers whole *As long as whole is less than $250k.

I wish I had +250k in my bank account....

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#99

Post by UncleMeat »

prohobo wrote: post #52
sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is one of the biggest active victim-blaming communities. "Not your wallet not your coin", or whatever they like saying, is just is just deflection from valid criticism that crypto is very easy to exploit without recourse.

I disagree. To me it's like saying passwords are broken because most people choose "password123". Or like saying dollar bills are bad because they can rip. Safety rails should be made of course, but if you aren't even maintaining basic hygiene within a system then I'm sorry but that's on you. People are learning to use better passwords, and people learned long ago to keep their paper money in a wallet. The same will…

Passwords are broken because people choose “password123”. People work on all sorts of alternatives because of this.

Re: Voyager suspends trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards

#100

Post by jsmith45 »

arcticbull wrote: post #71
AmericanChopper wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> makes customers whole *As long as whole is less than $250k.

Yes, that's the worst case - however in the real world the FDIC and the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) does their best to ensure nobody loses any amount of money regardless of their account balance. In the case of WaMu in 2008 for instance, the OTS took possession of the bank and sold it to JPMorgan Chase. They didn't draw on the deposit insurance fund and everyone stayed whole. [1] "According to FDIC spokeswoman…

That "No depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933" claim is in reference to just the insured part of the deposits (as in up to the limits).

FDIC is required to go with the resolution that will cost the least to the fund. An acquirer offering to take on all Deposits rather than just insured deposits is typically not a big problem for the acquirer, and can save a surprising amount of money on the FDICs side, so most acquisition offers tend to be for all deposits rather than just insured deposits. (It also tends to keep your new customers happier if they did not lose money, which is very much an actual consideration that goes into bidding on a failing bank).

However, sometimes a bank will successfully bid for only the insured portions of deposit accounts. This happened with The Enloe State Bank in 2019, where Legend Bank's bid to acquire just the insured portions of deposit accounts.

Nevertheless, losing deposits over the insured amount in a bank closure is definitely the exception and not the norm in recent times.

Post reply on HN