zlacker

>>mkeete+(OP)
> While we have informed users that there are no absolute guarantees against risks

I'm... uh.... fairly certain this was not the crux of their marketing which severly downplayed the underlying risk. There is also a huge spectrum between "we cannot guarantee that there is 0 risk" (which seems to be what the above sentence is saying), and "there exists a risk that all of your funds disappears in 24 hours".

It seems like there is some serious rewriting of history going on here.

Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)?

>>nrmitc+ib
Further little notes from their documentation that, lets just say, "downplay the risk":

- "You will not lose your funds because all loans are 100% asset-backed." (https://stablegains.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402680425...)

- "Regardless if crypto markets are soaring or crashing, the value of assets under our management remains stable." (https://stablegains.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402687671...)

It's kind of shocking really that these statements are still up give how many of their other docs have been editted in the last 10 days.

---

Edit: u/ushakov is the hero of the hour for archiving those pages (https://archive.ph/O2lZV, https://archive.ph/ItERp)

>>nrmitc+Rf
The statements are kind of true if treat funds as the UST in your account. While the UST has remained safe, the value of UST hasn't.

>>charci+8n
“No honey, I did not lose the house in a poker game. I know exactly where it is, the only difference is that Bob owns it now”.

The statement is kind of true if you want to be very disingenuous to what people actually care about.

Also, As far as I know, no one deposited UST with stablegains. Stablegains took funds in other formats and converted it themselves.