New US Rule Could Force Crypto Providers to Compensate Fraud Victims

[Freemind]

They've got to make all the rules clear. America's changed it's leadership with a new team so we'll see how Elon Musk & Donald Trump bring new crypto laws.

Not only are clear rules needed from the beginning of this new proposal. It is also necessary to know who is going to provide the money after suffering a security breach in which confidential user data is stolen or funds are stolen. And I still think that it is the companies that should pay (exchanges, payment processors and others) since it is their obligation to maintain the maximum security of their systems. If this is not done, and the State is responsible for paying, once again the problem would fall on the taxpayer and not on the company that did not properly secure its systems.

[Bobcrypto]

Although the initial idea may seem good to the affected users, I believe that the entire process necessary to carry it out could make the entire path traveled useless. Being able to do something like this would require 100% transparency of the affected service (exchange, company) and I am not just referring to economic transparency, with which very few companies will agree, but also, in the case of hacks, transparency with code, firewalls, access to servers, wallets and much more.

How many companies would be willing to hand over all the keys?. I'm sure a very low percentage of them.

No. The victims may not have ven be open to give up transparency either. One wallet leads to another and it will be another issue to face for the victims when it reveals something else.

For exchanges, they will have to prove they are really hacked. Of all exchanges who claimed they were hacked, non of them really care to show they were.

Well, the prove of exchange hack is a challenge on the crypto space, and most exchanges who claimed to have been hacked might not be real. I am completely doubtful if some of the exchanges, especially the tie three exchanges can proof that they are actually hacked, i think many of them may not be sincere.
In my opinion, the idea to compasate victims is a good idea, though the challenges regarding real hack has to be addressed to avoid creating more problems to all parties involved.

[Freemind]

Well, the prove of exchange hack is a challenge on the crypto space, and most exchanges who claimed to have been hacked might not be real. I am completely doubtful if some of the exchanges, especially the tie three exchanges can proof that they are actually hacked, i think many of them may not be sincere.
In my opinion, the idea to compasate victims is a good idea, though the challenges regarding real hack has to be addressed to avoid creating more problems to all parties involved.

I totally agree. How will they be able to prove that an exchange has actually been hacked and that it was not an attempt to take users' funds?. It is true that today's computer forensic tools are very advanced, but even those tools would not be able to find something that does not exist, but has been emulated to give the impression, and false evidence, of a real hack. I don't know how they are going to present this new rule, but I would like to know how they are going to solve possible problems like this and many others that may appear.

The worst thing about all this is that although they may have good intentions to protect exchange users, this rule could cause the opposite, more bureaucracy, waiting times and possible scams that are difficult to prove.

[bitterguy28]

I totally agree. How will they be able to prove that an exchange has actually been hacked and that it was not an attempt to take users' funds?. It is true that today's computer forensic tools are very advanced, but even those tools would not be able to find something that does not exist, but has been emulated to give the impression, and false evidence, of a real hack. I don't know how they are going to present this new rule, but I would like to know how they are going to solve possible problems like this and many others that may appear.

the government or the platform wouldn’t just take people’s words for it they need proof and they need to i guess look at the platform itself there will be activity logs that surely would raise suspicions and can indicate that someone really did try to hack the platform and they were successful taking funds

The worst thing about all this is that although they may have good intentions to protect exchange users, this rule could cause the opposite, more bureaucracy, waiting times and possible scams that are difficult to prove.

good for bringing up waiting times i just hope that the government is efficient but if history repeats itself it is possible that victims would not be compensated immediately and would need to wait for some time

[Freemind]

the government or the platform wouldn’t just take people’s words for it they need proof and they need to i guess look at the platform itself there will be activity logs that surely would raise suspicions and can indicate that someone really did try to hack the platform and they were successful taking funds

good for bringing up waiting times i just hope that the government is efficient but if history repeats itself it is possible that victims would not be compensated immediately and would need to wait for some time

Do you mean that the government or a government-appointed company performs an audit? That would be normal, but that's what I meant by cheating. The exchange can simulate a hack, or even be hacked for real, but by "hackers" who have almost all the keys to access any server and from there, for example, escalate privileges until they obtain almost absolute control. I think it will be very difficult to control which hack is real and which is not. And thinking about the worst, I think this new government rule is going to bring more problems than solutions.

[arabspaceship123]

Trump hasn't announced his intentions so we're wasting time on opinions which might not be true. We've got to comment after they've published their rules on how they're going to force crypto providers to compensate victims.

The worst thing about all this is that although they may have good intentions to protect exchange users, this rule could cause the opposite, more bureaucracy, waiting times and possible scams that are difficult to prove.

[Freemind]

Trump hasn't announced his intentions so we're wasting time on opinions which might not be true. We've got to comment after they've published their rules on how they're going to force crypto providers to compensate victims.

I don't think we're wasting our time, we're just giving our opinion on how things could be when this new ruleis signed and comes into effect. This new rule could change things a lot when users lose their funds due to exchange hacks, if the new rule grants compensation to those users, that money will have to come from somewhere, trying to discuss where that money is going to come from, whether from the government, taxes or wherever, is the purpose of this thread, in addition to knowing how exchanges would prove that they have really been hacked.