No. It looks like the people who built the software were underqualified.

Maybe I misunderstood, but all of them either "thought" that was the right thing to do or signed off on it. Even if the software should have warned them, shouldn't they have known the correct transactions to make?

That's issue here with this specific software's UX.

They all thought they were making the right transaction. There was no warning that they were not.

It would be like if I hit the reply button here on Hacker News and instead of the comment I typed out it my reply contained my bank account information. And I was not told something I do not want to happen would happen by doing so.

I think I understand now: the software was doing the wrong thing. They thought they were making one transaction, but they made a different one. One wonders how long that had been going on for, and how it could have been going on for so long.

Thanks for the explanation. It saddens me how brutal people here are in response to a misunderstanding, judging by the downvotes, but oh well.

It saddens you? You made a scathing misjudgement about the involved people without having read the article, or even the rest of the thread here. I don't think it's the downvoters that are "brutal" here.

My point has illustration here.

Calling three separate people "under-qualified" is a bit more than a misunderstanding.

They knew the correct transactions to make; the problem is the software was unbelievably counter-intuitive. At some point the user can't be blamed if the UX design is that bad.

LOL.