Well, I don't think anyone is pressuring them but for the sake of credibility, they should also do well to settle affected customers, it was not the fault of any customers that polymarket got compromised. If it was just a hack of a customer's account due to the person's carelessness, polymarket won't do anything about it but since the problem is from their end, they will take care of it.
I would not say that this is correct. If you have any kind of considerable reputation at all, you are implicitly being pressured to do the right thing even if there is no external or formal pressure on it. However, in this case there are also plenty of voices that are demanding for compensation -- sometimes even retribution. It sounds to me like you've never even opened X? People are sometimes pressuring platforms for compensation even if they get hacked in ways that are entirely their own fault, they are that dumb these days.
Magic labs? Hhmm.. never heard of it but this is why I only stick to those that is trusted and are already long in the game. Web wallets have evolved through time. Before, they are being unlocked by a private key and then only password is needed. The latest would be is like that you said that they can now be unlocked through social media and email. Even though it can provide an ease of access but it is just the exchange of it is our safety, that we can now be hacked easily.
The method that you have described is not that much safer than the method that you are criticizing. Most attack vectors that work against one of those methods, work also against the other one. Only with security that comes with basic hardware wallets or higher could you reasonably, fairly argue against this social media login (and extension wallets, or password only protected wallets).
This seems like peanuts to them. They’re worth billions. Unfortunate for sure, but polymarket will survive this and be stronger as a result. Better to learn this lesson now as opposed to later when they’re holding a lot more user funds.
Exactly, it is nothing really. If this was a centralized platform of similar size, the hack would not even be reported unless it was necessary. This is a tiny loss.
But the thing is, it doesn’t really affect them monetarily since they’re not admitting it was their fault. They’re pushing the blame to a third-party app, so technically the users who lost their balances are being treated as something out of their control. If they do end up refunding, that would honestly be good to hear. But based on what I’ve read so far, once they point the finger at a third party, it looks like they won’t take full responsibility for what happened. That’s what worries me.
That is not what "pushing the blame" is. With IT systems it is most often clear who or what is objectively at fault for something like this. There is no room for subjective interpretation as can be seen in many other industries. Therefore, if it was a third-party app that was compromised and led to some losses on Polymarket then it is the fault of that app. There is no reason for them to take full responsibility,
when they are not fully responsible for this. They can't make a native re-implementation of every service and thing that they need, this is not how IT is done. All of these wallets and platforms depend on countless other packages, services and providers to operate. Even if it is objectively true that the 3rd party is at fault, that does not mean that it will be that party who will do the refunding. Things don't work simply as that, they are much more complicated. Sometimes the provider has no legal obligation to do it based on contracts, other times they would not have the capital to do the refund anyway and so forth.
With such a small amount of money involved, I see no reason why Polymarket would not do the refund and save themselves the headache.
