Bittrex seems undecided how they want to proceed with the 23 million STEEM
In a recent post by the co-founder of Bittrex, it seems that he is unclear on how he should proceed with the STEEM debacle...
Bittrex put out a statement yesterday talking about how they planned to respond to the 23 million STEEM being sent to them, which put them squarely in the middle of all the drama.
Their response can be seen here:
https://hive.blog/hive-148441/@jrcornel/bittrex-responds-to-the-steem-situation
Unfortunately the wording in their response wasn't entirely clear as to how exactly they wanted to proceed...
Initially, it sounded like they would be sending the STEEM directly back to the account from which it was sent, though the wording used left open for other possibilities as well, which I am sure was intentional.
This portion though at the end of their announcement made it further sound like sending it back to the account from which it was sent was their palan:
"…the consensus of the blockchain, regardless of how it was reached, agreed that the funds from those 64 accounts be moved to the “community321” account."
But wait, there's more...
Fast forward a few hours (about 15 hours to be precise) and it looks like the same guy that put out that statement from Bittrex put this post out on Twitter...
(Source: https://twitter.com/richiela/status/1263500008071942144)
Which, if you have ever seen the movie he is referencing, you know that he is talking about the guy being extremely conflicted and confused with how he should make his next move...
It's a pretty funny clip btw:
This is actually pretty good news though...
For anyone that was thinking that Bittrex had already made up their mind with how they would proceed, think again.
It sounds like they are conflicted with what direction they should go, at the very least, and possibly undecided.
On the one hand they could send the funds back from where they came, or on the other hand they could try and figure out who owned what prior to the fork...
Either way, judging by their tweet earlier today it doesn't sound like they have made any hard and fast decisions just yet.
Which is probably a good thing.
Stay informed my friends.
-Doc
they are in very tough situation now. They are in dilemma how they can mover further about consensus of the steem block chain and how can transfer the funds deposited on their exchange. Pretty much first time an exchange facing situation like this.
Yep, agreed. I feel bad for them. They didn't ask to be put in the middle of this...
I don't feel bad for Bittrex... After they split to US and global/international version, they were asking for trouble...
Bittrex has always been about big traders and big sums, they basically filter out small traders with ever increasing minimum trade limits and high minimum deposit limits.
Very interesting things are happening.
Nullify it!
How so?
In my personal opinion, they should send them to @null, essentially burning the coins... If they do anything else, those coins are permanently tainted and any exchange that touches them can be held liable.
I honestly don't think they can do that from a legal standpoint. Someone owns those coins, they just have to figure out who. It's possible those coins remained stuck for a long time until legal opinion can be given on the situation.
Bittrex own the coins ;)
Yes, but those coins are tainted, so they can't use or transfer them. Due to AML, all large sums are tainted by definition.
I believe I read somewhere that if coins are sent to bittrex with the wrong memo they are under no legal obligation to return them, but instead are treated as a donation. Now, I don't think for one second Bittrex will go that route in this particular situation, but it looks like legally, they could.
Bittrex technically has possession of the coins, but due to AML they can't declare them as donation as there is maximum number of transferable coins that is exempt from AML.
Basically any large amount of currency is by default assumed to be criminal in origin, unless proven otherwise... As the account where they were sent was accessed by someone other than intended user of the account, they can't possibly prove the legitimate origin of the coins.
I know it's unlikely that they do that, but for legal point, they actually can due to AML. If they transfer the coins back, they violate AML as those coins are tainted.