G'Day, fuckheads! (Sorry about that: I was feeling randomly slightly

Question

G'Day, fuckheads! (Sorry about that: I was feeling randomly slightly

aggressive upon waking up today but I didn't want to be 'passive' about it because that is apparently much more frowned upon, lmao.) So what do y'all think about this 'escheatment' thing, is this a real risk? Never heard of it before. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/tec7cc/keeping_your_crypto_or_money_on_accounts_banks/

#bch #bitcoincash #cryptocurrency #english

0

15.03.2022

6 ответов

11 просмотров

Powell Quesne Автор вопроса

Escheatment not an approved topic here? OK never mind...

0

15.03.2022

Powell Quesne Автор вопроса

Dustin 🪐
At a glance, that pos mentions North Carolina (I t...

I am in Canada yes, thanks for your perspective on it. I would hope it is different here but I often find when I check it into that the rules are the same here they just call it something different. Did you see the comment that said "There is currently a large Legal battle going on about this because the State had liquidated peoples assets (homes included) in recent years and took all profit as 'abandoned'"? Where is that happening anyone else heard of this?

0

15.03.2022

Dustin 🪐

Powell Quesne
I am in Canada yes, thanks for your perspective on...

I didn’t read any comments and only skimmed the post, but I’m skeptical of that claim for a numerous reasons. 1) If it were true, I think there’d be lots of noise about it. 2) Legal battles often involve two entities not understanding one another. 3) I don’t see how a state could consider a house “abandoned” due to lack of activity. 4) A bank can already take a house due to mortgage default. 5) A state can already take a house due to a property tax default (assuming the state has property taxes, don’t know about North Carolina specifically). 6) A house isn’t typically owned on in an account like other assets that can be liquidated. (6) is a great example of why I can’t understand tokenization of such ownership via NFT as I recall reading about some entity attempting somewhere in Europe recently. Considering (6), IF it is true, somebody forgot about a trust or something and some state may have a dirty law.

0

15.03.2022

Powell Quesne Автор вопроса

Dustin 🪐
I didn’t read any comments and only skimmed the po...

They didn't just say homes they said assets with homes included but thanks for your analysis.

0

15.03.2022

Dustin 🪐

Powell Quesne
They didn't just say homes they said assets with h...

The homes included part is what makes me skeptical. The trust idea is one that could explain that.

0

15.03.2022

Dustin 🪐 · Accepted Answer

At a glance, that pos mentions North Carolina (I think). As far as I know, there are still advertisements all over the place in the US about “claiming lost money,” and last I heard, dormant accounts had to be turned over to the state for holding, but the money could be claimed by the original owner or descendants. Surely there is some deadline on that, but it only applies to custodial holdings, and even then, the definition of dormant may be up to the custodian. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some states change this or some countries have different rules, but there are some really clueless people misreading laws in the crypto world regardless. Even if it is a thing, and that thing is what the poster thinks it is, you’re in Canada, right? Likely different there.

209 похожих чатов

G'Day, fuckheads! (Sorry about that: I was feeling randomly slightly

6 ответов

Похожие вопросы