RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dear Blurt Community & Followers
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Why do you bring conviction into this? You are reaching to hard again so am going to disengage here with repeating what was already said.
The bank wouldn't convict obviously, that is outside the parameters of their authority. What I said and repeat is if they gave money to the wrong party they would retrieve it once discovered, and using your new introduction here WOULD SEEK lawful charges and conviction IF the money was no longer able to be taken back.
BUT you can be assured that if the money was still held in an account they could access, they would promptly take that money back from the wrongful holder.
Your stance on this comes across to be debating just to debate and not because there is substance or conviction to your position. So again, I'm disengaging and wishing you well with your positions I can't connect with here.
if you look at this as if it were a "real-world-scenario"
the exchange received custodial funds
and the issuer (airdropper) would not be able to "confiscate" those funds
any perceived "crime" would be between the exchange and their customers who (may or may not) want their custodial funds
the blurt network should stay out of this
because it sets a dangerous precedent