So why read malevolence into what could more easily described as incompetence? especially if you have little to no evidence to back up your less likely scenarios?
Questioning their solvency is rational whether one assumed malfeasance _or_ incompetence. The
evidence that they had a major loss directly backs this suspicion for this particular exchange.
Whether they are thieves or bumbling idiots matters little - either is a disqualifier for entrusting them with _my_ funds.
Yeah right.. in other words you have no evidence beyond the fact that they were hacked in August and that their "hack" story in August was implausible in your view. In other words, some of their subsequent behavior to stay open, to not run away with the funds and to engage in various innovative pay back resolution carries little to no weight with you, and instead you want to focus on some narrow situation and lack of evidence for your current assertions.
matters little - either is a disqualifier for entrusting them with _my_ funds.