RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Dear Blurt Community & Followers

in blurt •  2 years ago 

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.


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

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!
Sort Order:  
  ·  2 years ago  ·  

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


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com