Ok here are some actual quotes then:

"We have no risk of bankruptcy" - objectively false statement

"it is possible, however unlikely, that a court would decide to consider customer assets as part of the company in bankruptcy proceedings" - goes against the entire point of his thread, and is also exactly why this disclosure was required

The quote above seems like a completely accurate and fair characterization.

> "We have no risk of bankruptcy"

Isn't that a statement that the SEC should fine them for?

If he just said that, then probably. In context of the thread it’s clear to me that he means there isn’t a risk eminent bankruptcy.

You make valid points. I edited my post.

I would argue that's the people's problem. How important is what they have to say anyway if they won't read the source and can't detect sarcasm?

edit: also, even if it's not a direct quote.. c'mon, it is what he's saying. The SEC made a rule that applies _specifically for crypto companies_, saying they have to disclose that crypto assets under their custody could potentially be taken in a bankruptcy.. and this guy goes on to say what he was just forced to disclose is not true. It doesn't get more obvious.

“It is what he’s saying” is subjective. A quote is not (or shouldn’t be, despite far too many violations in the real world). Just say “Summary: blah blah” if you want to post your subjective summary.

I do not believe a reasonable human would consider this statement:

> Please ignore our SEC disclosure and half-billion dollar quarterly loss, and instead trust my unregulated statements posted on Twitter.

As actually possibly coming from the mouth of the CEO of a company (that is not Elon).

As I said,

> People can’t detect subtle or not-so-subtle cues.

Or they just skim part of the comment and jump to reply immediately. Same effect.

I never would have thought a CEO would make a statement like this:

>We have no risk of bankruptcy

Reality is that every company has greater than "no risk" of bankruptcy. That's why regulators force them to spell out their risks in filings.

You already write why that is mathematically impossible, so the logical conclusion would be that it is not meant to be interpreted like that no? Language is not maths, no risk doesn't mean the risk is zero. It means the risk is unlikely.

These are complicated topics. The people buying crypto at Coinbase are not sophisticated investors.

It is entirely reasonable to believe that a large proportion of Coinbase users would read, "We have no risk of bankruptcy" and choose to leave their money at Coinbase believing that the CEO must have used some financial mechanism to 100% prevent bankruptcy.

Words have meaning, and when you say, "no risk of bankruptcy" there are a lot of people that will be duped into believing that literally.

It would be a bit weird to stop reading mid-Tweet though. After the comma he says Coinbase added a new risk factor to the list as required by the SEC.

It's not a people problem if you're making up quotes and people don't realize it. Use quoting for quotes. Everything else is in your own words, not someone elses, even if you are paraphrasing.

Thank you for summing it up this way. It certainly sounds like the original author wants to be taken seriously. In that case they should probably respect the fact that there is literally a word for what they've done. Misquote and its synonyms do not have good connotations, and in their worst form are simply libel...

If only we took this much care in the news. How many times has both sides misquoted someone? Yet people only seem to care when it’s misquoting the Coinbase CEO.