So 'safer than a swiss bank' (and implicitly the swiss government) was a bit of an overstatement? Or do you still maintain that BTS has a lower systemic risk than a swiss bank/the swiss government?
I've only seen BTS comments relating to counterparty risk. Systemic risk not being mentioned, only allusions to BTS being equal to an insurance company or Fortune 500 company or other organisation that has significantly less risk of collapsing around you. And, presumably, hoping the reader equates the risk between the two as equal by association.
You're mixing apples and oranges here imo, that statement was made up by the Bitshares "marketing department" and does indeed refer to the safety of your funds compared to in a traditional bank, which is subject to government confiscations, bankruptcy, Cyprus style haircuts and other kinds of risk. Like you said in another post this is equally true for any blockchain based currency, although they of course do not offer the market pegged assets with interest payment that makes Bitshares more similar to a traditional bank.
Ah, so BTS marketers were just trying to catch noobs who didn't understand that what they were investing in was available everywhere within crypto, rather than being a unique USP to BTS?
But you still appear to support that $100 in BTS is safer than $100 of CHF in a traditional swiss bank. Maybe you should have said "Safer than a Cypriot bank", but I guess that would have grabbed fewer people..