~snip~
This is quite an interesting scenario.
What these projects are doing is debatable, because it essentially shows that their operations are still somewhat centralized. Sure, they may be saving their projects in the short term from a dump, but in the long run it does no good for their project's image. I'm sure anyone with a vested stake at Cryptopia would hate to see this happen as well.
Also, even if there was to be a large scale dump by Cryptopia to recoup losses and reimburse people, how would they do so effectively when there is only extremely limited liquidity for these coins to begin with since their market caps are so damn low? That's what I don't get.
Literally, the whole idea of hiring the liquidators has proved to be stupid. Cryptopia founders should've at least thought a little about this scenario, and just returned the unhacked coins or tokens.
However, I'm involved in a few Discord channels of those low-cap coins, and seriously, nobody in those channels gives a f*** about "centralization". All they care about is that their coins order books remain out of Cryptopia's liquidators' reach. In the last few months, I've seen polls getting the vote of about 95% "yes, fork the chain!" and just 5% "no, muh decentralization!"
Btc price at hacks day was 3.6k and now is 11.3k, they can sell only a small btc now and give the $ equivalent on hacks day, they have more money now. They dont need "liquidator" with all altcoins
That's a nice point but unfortunately, the major amount of coins that were involved in the hack, as far as I remember,
included bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin.