You didn't acknowledge or argue against this logic. That unlike your example, deposits did not constitute an investment in Patrick business, but a deposit just as a bank.
I did. I argued that this case is different because both Patrick and those who invested with him made precisely the same mistake.
You agreed that depositors at a bank are rarely at common fault for the bank's bad investments and everything seems to point that the situation is very similar to deposits at a bank. You know just as much when depositing at a bank yet you do not accept any risk other than the bank declaring bankruptcy. In this case the bank is Patrick Harnett himself and he did not declare bankruptcy. He just voided partially the deposit amounts and said he'd pay deposits if he manage to get something back.
This is not a case of a bank making bad investments while its depositors had a reasonable expectation that it would make good investments. This is a case where both Patrick and those who invested with him made precisely the same mistake -- given his business model, there's nothing Patrick did wrong (until the Kraken fiasco). He just picked a lousy business model to invest in, just as his investors did. I don't know what else I can say other than to keep repeating myself because these are points I've already responded to. (You are, of course, welcome to respond to my responses.)
Patrick and those who lent money to him belived that Patrick would have sufficient funds in his loan portfolio to cover deposits in the event of a Pirate default. But he did not. This was not through any particular fault of Patrick's that wasn't shared with those who loaned him money.
Aug 10 08:06:31 listen i actually wanted to talk to you.
Aug 10 08:06:38 hi
Aug 10 08:06:54 hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21
I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T freeAug 10 08:07:39 that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58 you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00 back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57 back
Aug 10 08:10:17
in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover thatAug 10 08:10:41
mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&TAug 10 08:10:56
well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with youPatrick is arguing that because of his business model, he would have sufficient assets to cover his borrowed funds even if Pirate defaults. Those who loaned him money agreed with this assessment. Whether it was inevitable given his business model or Patrick just suffered bad luck or what have you, Patrick and those who loaned him money agreed on a set of circumstances which formed the basis for the loan, a key one of which happened to be incorrect, without which neither party would have entered into the agreement.
I don't know how it could be clearer: "well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you".