Quote from: Mushoz on June 14, 2012, 03:23:30 PM

Quote from: elux on June 14, 2012, 03:10:31 PM

Quote from: vampire on June 14, 2012, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: elux on June 14, 2012, 02:36:42 PM

If you opened a long position at 4.30, your position is closed at 4.30.
If you opened a short position at 5.30, your position is closed at 5.30.

Using this approach, the only loss for customers will be opportunity cost. Sounds reasonable?

Personally I think that how would any other company would decide, simply cancel all orders. But longs will be pissed, at least they should get their balances in BTC if they had them in BTC.

Yep. Sure.

Disclosure notice: This proposal would put me at a ~100 USD loss, compared to closing my long position at current market rate.
But this would be the same outcome as if I had no BTC/USD position and simply sat on my dollars for a month. Ah well.

Expecting Bitcoinica to close positions at the 'most favorable price', sounds unreasonable.
Additionally, closing positions at current market price would certainly wipe out many leveraged shorts.
They would not be happy. They would likely pursue legal action.

Closing positions at (for example) the market price from the day of the hack (with spread or without) seems arbitrary.
Closing at 4.94 - 4.98 would put me, and others holding long positions, at an unreasonable loss. I would not be happy.

I would not take legal action, but I think it likely that someone with more on the line would want to.

Two separate settlement prices is more complicated, and creates more room for discontent.

I imagine that any other settlement proposal than opening price == closing price makes legal action more likely,
which in turn would put a halt to any hope of timely and reasonable settlements.

What about people with a long since $2? I'm not one of them, but I can image people would be pissed if their long would close at 2$...

yep.

but I think there is no such