Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The customers surely have standing to sue Binance. But to close the gap between what you feel should happen and what could actually happen… exactly what crime could they be prosecuted for?
 help



What would they sue for? Nobody lost any funds.

Why should we believe Binance when they say all customers will be made whole, and how will they do that, with what money?

It seems very unlikely they have $3-6B lying around ready to repay customer deposits. At the very least this would be catastrophic for them if they do lose all that money.

Have they re-enabled withdrawals yet? If I were a customer I'd be taking everything out as soon as possible.


> It seems very unlikely they have $3-6B lying around ready to repay customer deposits

For Binance? I’d actually say very likely. They’d need to move a couple of papers around, but should be easy.


their stated plan, for what it’s worth, is that they have $6.34B of company funds set aside, most of it already in the same coins that were taken, plus the SAFU emergency fund at about $1B. around $3B of the stolen money is frozen at Tether, Circle and others, and CZ’s own post on X put the rest of the gap at about $2B.

withdrawals have been paused since Thursday night. binance says it will reopen them in stages from Sunday and publish proof of reserves by Monday, which is the thing that would actually answer your question.


Vouched. Not sure why this was flagged.

It is estimated that Binance has revenues of 20 billion and 7-8 billion in profit a year.

Funds have been already allocated for recovery by the CEO Richard Teng.


Jesus, what do they spend 12B USD per year on expenses?

They run everything in AWS ;)

Why should we believe that binance was hacked? Maybe nothing happened at all?

The former CEO of Binance CZ has been banned from any contact with the company after a conviction for fraud and he's the one giving assurances here.

So there are good reasons to be skeptical of his statements.


They have much more than 6b lying around. They are a money printer .

They don't need need money. What was stolen was some sort of "digital assets". How are they going to cover that, I have no idea, but let's not equate crypto assets with money. If someone would have stolen my bike, i wouldn't be saying "they stole $1000". They stole a bike, which could or could not be recovered, and which was or wasn't covered by insurance.

And if thieves stole a bag of paper from you, that happen to have the number $100 and some other artwork written on them by the government, what then? It's not money, it's just some "paper asset"? You're just showing your own personal bias about what the definition of money is.

It's not personal bias. Most laws around the world do not classify crypto currencies as "money".

It's an important distinction.

$3.5B stolen was "stable coins", which you could equate to a piece of paper with a dollar amount written on it.

Those are largely freezable by the issuer of the paper.

Then we have $2.4B in Bitcoin and ETH stolen. Those are not directly freezable.

However, if that does create a liquidity challenge for these exchanges, what if the price just so happens to drop by 60% after trading is restricted? That liability might shrink in actual value.


    > "Those are largely freezable by the issuer of the paper."
Freezing prevents the stolen tokens from being used. Is there a mechanism to return the stolen tokens to the (presumed) owner?

Interested to understand how this would work in a decentralised accounting mechanism.


What if the bag of paper "money" is in a foreign currency? You'd still happily call it money, but then the distinctions you're trying to draw with crypto don't really apply. Think of crypto as a foreign currency, it still functions as money.

Crypto isn't foreign currency. The price may fluctuate wildly based on sentiment and action taken by exchanges such as Binance, which would directly impact their obligation here.

Comparing crypto to actual currency typically connected to large, real economies is not relevant here.


The crypto economy has about the same market size as a country like Russia, Italy, or Brazil.

A country like Iceland is far smaller, and their currency famously fluctuated in 2008. Would you consider Icelandic króna as money? Most people do.


The crypto economy isn't real, it's a pointless wealth redistribution scheme.

Anyway, that and your question are hardly relevant to the fact that Binance and their cabal own the crypto exchanges and consequently could manipulate the price to reduce the size of their obligation denominated in crypto rather than currency or stable coins.


Define "own the crypto exchanges" here. What percent of transactions in and out of bitcoin and ethereum go through them?

Yes, and we could have a paper money system where a registry of stolen serial numbers is kept and they can’t be deposited at any bank or used to pay the government ever again.

Criminal Negligence. They have a history of that.

Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, were previously sued for willfully evading anti-money laundering (AML) controls. In that instance, the government ruled their compliance failures were not an accident, but a deliberate criminal enterprise. Binance paid $4.3 billion in fines and forfeitures to settle with the DOJ, CFTC, and FinCEN in November 2023.


This is very reassuring. It means they almost certainly have the $6b available. It’s the same order of magnitude as fines they have already paid.

Fines are paid out over time by taking loans against your very profitable business. Do you want to loan money to someone who just had one of the biggest thefts in history and has secondary obligations and risks.

It looks to me like Binance will be able to scrape together enough money to make their customers whole, so your probably right.

Next time this happens to Binance though they won't have an emergency fund and possibly they'll be in debt, and that's when the users will be very screwed.

Their terrible security certainly indicates to me that future of Binance is not going to be a pretty one unless they make some enormous changes.


I’m sure they could go get some insurance, it’s cost would be a good motivation

Insurance has limits especially in cyber. Eg it could be topped out at $200M.

Basically they didn’t insure themselves against there actual risks and will likely have further fines placed against them for being underinsured.

> exactly what crime could they be prosecuted for?

Note that “crime” has a specific definition in law. You don’t have to be a criminal (commit a crime) to be rightfully sued, civil suits are a thing.

Anyway, your parent comment already answered the question, they would be sued by negligence.


In the U.S., a lawsuit can be either civil or criminal.

Only the government (e.g., federal, state, local) may bring a criminal suit.[1] But in both civil / criminal cases they are still a suit under the law seeking some form of ordered relief from the Court.

Essentially, you can think of "criminal" as a category of law and relief (e.g., prison) that is only accessible to the government.

Both the government and citizens may bring "civil" suits. Very generally, the remedies in civil suits are a court order to 1) stop doing a thing; 2) to do a thing required by law / agreement; 3) to transfer property, usually but not always money, from one party to another; or 4) to define a set of rules governing the parties going forward.

[1] There may be some obscure exception to this, but it is true for everything I've ever seen / heard of.


I think it’s the mixed terminology that’s causing confusion. Prosecution is for criminal offenses. Lawsuits are for civil cases.

You are correct that I mixed those up. In any case, my point still stands modulo my incorrect use of terminology.

What negligence? They got their own money stolen. You do not get sued for being robbed of your money, normally. If they do not have the liquidity to let people withdraw money that is another issue, but it does not seem to be the case.

Withdrawals are still blocked.

Telling us nothing.

I was responding to:

> If they do not have the liquidity to let people withdraw money that is another issue, but it does not seem to be the case.


Yeah, temporarily. I doubt that being out of service for a few days gives enough grounds to sue, even merely due to ToS provisions. And that is indeed irrelevant as it is about being temporarily out of service, not having "lost customer money".

Again they cannot be charged for losing billions of their own money, and there is no way to somehow consider the lost funds as "customers' money". I am all for companies getting sued due to negligence when eg they fail to protect customer data, but this is just between binance and the hackers.


It’s their money, that they are borrowing against everyone else’s money that is locked in accounts. The copium with these people is real.

The distinction between civil vs. criminal was the core of my comment. Sure they can be sued. But what exactly would they be prosecuted for?



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

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

Search: