This is obviously unscrupulous behavior. Stop trying to rationalize it.
Stop claiming things you don't know to be fact. You don't know they aren't able to pay their debts. If anything it sounds like they don't want to because they don't feel obligated to. I'm not saying that's the best way to go about the situation, but you are just assuming they are insolvent -- that's your assumption, and only an assumption.
Bitfinex immediately converted the insolvent accounts to debt tokens which they reimbursed. Livecoin did no such thing.
The difference is Bitfinex got hacked for $72 million. That was explicitly their fault. Livecoin didn't get hacked, they got taken advantage of through a flaw in Monacoin's Lyre algorithm. BTW,
Bitfinex didn't actually repay their customers, a new incoming, particularly gullible class of "shareholders" did.
Yes, and Livecoin didn't account for the unreliability of Monacoin confirmations. They negligently accepted deposits and allowed withdrawals with far too few confirmations. They suffered double spending and passed the losses onto customers rather than eat the losses themselves.
I'm not denying that this is the case. However, without constant monitoring of the blockchain and looking for blocks mined too quickly, its impossible to know that an attack is underway, and therefore the number of confirmations needs to be increased. Its worth nothing that they stopped deposits as soon as they learned of the attack. Like with Monero, Livecoin are the ones who informed the developers about vulnerabilities in their software. They
caught wind of the attack and ceased deposits and withdrawals a full 6 days before the
Monacoin dev recommended increasing the number of confirmations before accepting a deposit to 100.
Livecoin was allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trading and did nothing in spite of the known vulnerability. They were completely negligent.
What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.
Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing.
This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.
When the attacks occurred on Monacoin, Bittrex didn't steal from their customers and permanently disable withdrawals. Livecoin should learn from their example.
Bittrex apparently lost no funds in the incident so there wasn't anything to "steal." I agree that Livecoin could have handled things better, but given the fact that there is only 1 user complaining about this issue on the forum, the entire thing seems way overblown.