Why lack of Cryptoassets insurance companies..?

[illete]

There’s a huge need of capacity within the insurance segment for cryptoassets, agreeing to the world’s to begin with cryptoasset insurance company. Cryptoasset insurer "Evertas" accepts there's less than 0.5% of capacity within the worldwide protections showcase to cover the esteem of cryptoassets. Concurring to Evertas, the worldwide protections industry as it were has capacity of almost US$1 billion to safeguarded cryptoassets.Can we say that limited insurance companies enough for huge crypto market?
 

[1714504021]

1714504021

[1714504021]

1714504021

[1714504021]

1714504021

[1714504021]

1714504021

[hopenotlate]

Insurance sector is subject to strict regulations, at least in Europe, and I think this currently makes it difficult to authorize and recognize by the market and above all gain the trust of a proper customer base.
This last feature also strongly affects the lack of development of insurances in the crypto sector according to me, considering that the mathematics underlying the principle on which insurances are based is the assumption that it is aimed at a large number of users to reduce the variance and thus allow the economic equilibrium of insurance companies.

[jackg]

I don't know if cryptocurrencies are yet patched fast enough to deal with this and they could technically undergo war tactics if one country owned the means of production for miners (and other countries didn't compete to have more power).

The space for insuring ssl certificates I think were and are a thing however their premiums were quite pricey compared to how much they paid out per claim as the technology was so new.

[paxmao]

In terms of size their are big enough for that and much more. In terms of interest in that market, it is linked to the large firms investment in the sector which is quite recent, but it is there. For example, the Spanish company Seur, a traditional safety and money logistics company, is now offering enterprise grade cold storage of cryptoassets. Fidelity is also following the same path.

[rabs]

Insurance sector is subject to strict regulations, at least in Europe, and I think this currently makes it difficult to authorize and recognize by the market and above all gain the trust of a proper customer base.
This last feature also strongly affects the lack of development of insurances in the crypto sector according to me, considering that the mathematics underlying the principle on which insurances are based is the assumption that it is aimed at a large number of users to reduce the variance and thus allow the economic equilibrium of insurance companies.

Preety well defined,I think there are still too much home work needed for insurance companies to secure client and and existence of own company.

[aoluain]

its only a matter of time though before more insurance companies solutions and products.

Custodial type services like Blockfi, Salt, Celsius, Nexo and Crypto.com could use an insurance
product if it were available and would give Crypto users more confidence to use the above services.

[Hydrogen]

The history of the Mt. Gox hack and many crypto institutions falling prey to phishing attacks could leave insurance agencies hesitant to offer coverage. There may not be as much of an industry standard of security measures implemented in crypto finance as there is with banks. There may also have been a few cases where sole holders of crypto private keys to millions in assets were accused of faking their own deaths. Which can only add to the controversy and risk factor of insuring crypto assets.

Account insurance like FDIC for banks is one tangible advantage traditional banks have over cryptocurrencies. One advantage they may be hesitant to lose. There could be political and regulatory pressure imposed against crypto assets being insured for these reasons.

Crypto exchanges, ETFs and brokers not having to pay monthly premiums to insurance companies could also be an advantage in terms of it reducing their overhead. Perhaps this is a gamble some would prefer to take.

I don't remember exchanges like Mt Gox being sued for lack of security measures. Lack of lawsuits and accountability could reduce the pressure on exchanges and holders of crypto assets to provide some form of insurance.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Probably due to regulations that could hampered along the way. Its reasonable that crypto asset insurance isn't as high on total market as only few will definitely try to establish one knowing that blockchains or majority of cryptocurrency are decentralized which volatility is fluctuating at a fine speed. Insurance is safe but not sure how they could run it on sea of cryptoassets.

[rabs]

We should talk about crypto insurance,It appreciated you highlited this topic.Most of modern thinker believe blockchain is for long run and crypto will alive for long and no doubt the crypto assets and products rising day by day so there should be insurance companies to protect the customers.I think people will think about it and will encourage crypto insurance as well.

[lixer]

The history of the Mt. Gox hack and many crypto institutions falling prey to phishing attacks could leave insurance agencies hesitant to offer coverage. There may not be as much of an industry standard of security measures implemented in crypto finance as there is with banks. There may also have been a few cases where sole holders of crypto private keys to millions in assets were accused of faking their own deaths. Which can only add to the controversy and risk factor of insuring crypto assets.

Account insurance like FDIC for banks is one tangible advantage traditional banks have over cryptocurrencies. One advantage they may be hesitant to lose. There could be political and regulatory pressure imposed against crypto assets being insured for these reasons.

Crypto exchanges, ETFs and brokers not having to pay monthly premiums to insurance companies could also be an advantage in terms of it reducing their overhead. Perhaps this is a gamble some would prefer to take.

I don't remember exchanges like Mt Gox being sued for lack of security measures. Lack of lawsuits and accountability could reduce the pressure on exchanges and holders of crypto assets to provide some form of insurance.

First of all there is definitely a chance to make money by insurance companies for that EXACT reason, why? Because if crypto is such a risky thing to insure, then you could charge premium amount for it, and those people or companies that get insurance would have to pay a lot of money to be insured and if nothing happens the insurance company would be in a huge huge profit.

I would do it just for the reason that I would probably make it back way before anything back happens, but also I believe places like Binance or Coinbase would rather continue operating instead of just "exist scam" with insurance money.

Secondly just because mt.gox wasn't sued for lack of security doesn't mean that they weren't used, and it also means that if they did had proper security and insurance they could have paid people back right away, or at least eventually when insurance company agrees, which means any other place that has it will not face jail time like Karpeles faced.

[jaysabi]

Why would you need insurance for crypto? The whole point of crypto is that you don't need banks to custody your assets and you don't need insurance to cover loss because you're the only one who can control it. If you're putting significant assets in crypto, you're assuming the risk you won't lose your keys.

[TheUltraElite]

There’s a huge need of capacity within the insurance segment for cryptoassets, agreeing to the world’s to begin with cryptoasset insurance company.

The biggest insurance that can be done in this sector is your own wallet safety and online safety.

Cryptoasset insurer -snip - accepts there's less than 0.5% of capacity within the worldwide protections showcase to cover the esteem of cryptoassets.

Are you their agent?

Concurring to -snip- the worldwide protections industry as it were has capacity of almost US$1 billion to safeguarded cryptoassets.Can we say that limited insurance companies enough for huge crypto market?

See in this sector, we have a trust issue that is prominent. You cannot sleep soundly keeping the bitcoin that you own in another person's wallet because you know that someone might spend it and you will have no legal protection or that wallet may get targeted by hackers and coins stolen.

These things are possible in fiat? I am not so sure though. But possible in bitcoin.

That is why we have not seen any such "Insurance" company here and even if there is one, I am rather going to store my coins with myself.