My understanding is that Coinlab (in the best case) was only able to handle a very limited number of number of daily transactions. This was presumably due to a combination of liability and supply issues that would prevent them from being a general supply for BTC until they had reached the sufficient "critical mass".
I'm surprised Mt. Gox would enter into such an ambitious relationship without exploring the negative signals (limited exchange capacity, very much unproven market record, limited userbase). IANAL, so I can't weight the evidence of the lawsuit sufficiently, but if the terms were that explicit (with no escape clauses or relevant conditions), then Mt. Gox has demonstrated they have very little institutional stability. In many ways, it seem more likely that Coinlab is very much vulnerable to such an attack, but that is purely speculation. Technical infrastructure for an exchange is obviously essential -- but the business and legal framework for a system that is inextricably connected with currency should be demonstrably stable. I am curious to see how the facts are revealed.
2 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 30.8 ms ] threadI'm surprised Mt. Gox would enter into such an ambitious relationship without exploring the negative signals (limited exchange capacity, very much unproven market record, limited userbase). IANAL, so I can't weight the evidence of the lawsuit sufficiently, but if the terms were that explicit (with no escape clauses or relevant conditions), then Mt. Gox has demonstrated they have very little institutional stability. In many ways, it seem more likely that Coinlab is very much vulnerable to such an attack, but that is purely speculation. Technical infrastructure for an exchange is obviously essential -- but the business and legal framework for a system that is inextricably connected with currency should be demonstrably stable. I am curious to see how the facts are revealed.