But what was your exposure exactly? Maybe I'm missing something. I guess there's risk to your reputation and risk of lost profits.
Really? It doesn't take much imagination.
These are mostly very minor or aren't a case of an asset issuer having to trust an exchange.
Exposure to lawsuits from investors.
I don't see how this is trust extended to the exchange. You mean if the exchange does something wrong, the issuer might get sued? I would consider that a pretty unrealistic fear. We'll find out which of us is right.
Exposure to release of your personal details after doing the verification process.
True. As it happens, giga isn't anonymous, but that applies to some issuers.
Exposure to bugs in the exchange that held up dividends or trading, thus depressing the value of your assets and angering asset holders.
That doesn't really hurt the issuer.
Exposure to legal issues because the exchange wasn't on solid legal ground.
I don't see how that's trust extended to the exchange.
For funds that held their portfolio on GLBSE, exposure to your portfolio disappearing.
Yes, I agree that asset owners have to trust the exchange. The question was whether asset owners had to trust the exchange.
Sure, if asset issuers also hold assets, then in their capacity as asset holders, they have to trust the exchange. But one can issue an asset without holding any assets on that exchange. As asset issuers, in that role, very little trust is extended to the exchange operator. (This is not the way it would normally be, it's unique to the Bitcoin universe.)