Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is already noted and explained in the article. Search for "totally uninvolved".


Says "can in principle be totally uninvolved", not "customarily is totally uninvolved.

The article seemed to imply that the institution transferring the securities would also be in the best position to vouch for the identity of the owner who it had been the custodian for.


But that sending institution may not be incentivized to do so, for the reasons identified earlier in the piece.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: