The money was already moved. They will declare bankruptcy.
Also, they may not have lost any real money, so the users may not have the rights they think they do here (and probably shouldn’t, given the courts aren’t funded to pursue imaginary internet money).
If a platform wants people to lend money to them, they should be a licensed (and FDIC-insured) credit institution.
I am thinking about how over the years we stopped owning digital purchases like music and books, and instead moved to a model where the service gives unlimited access to the good in exchange for a one time payment. At first it was a few fringe services, and now this is basically the norm when it comes to digital purchases.
How far would we be from a future where a brick and mortar "banks" offer their standard services, but also a "fancy account" that feels more attractive but doesn't actually work like a bank account anymore.
It won’t. It’s been outlawed since the 30s. China had its wealth management product era, and is now cracking down. Nobody financially literate should be falling for a yield farming scheme.
https://www.ipe.com/local-authorities-hold-over-1bn-in-icela...
(why would a UK council keep its money in an Icelandic bank? Higher interest rates. Where did the higher interest rates come from? Higher risk.)
Basically, for a marginal yield in a volatile industry, you are increasing your exposure to counter-party risk. People using these services are greedy and dumb, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would do this.
Also; I expect that a significant number of these companies will eventually be sued and will be forced to repay their customers.