haneefmubarak

You get up to the amounts insured by the FDIC, plus whatever is recoverable from the residual assets of the bank and anything else the FDIC decides to award.

I imagine the general problem is still that you're trying to bind a party without a live human who is plausibly authorized to bind them making a reasonably active decision to do so. IANAL, but AIUI "doing XYZ normal thing means you accept my contract" is already on shaky grounds, whereas never actually having the other party affirmatively agree (esp to a contract of adhesion) makes it super unlikely any non-kangaroo court would do anything besides throw your case out.

Any names or recs on the ones that can do both? Can they do both simultaneously?

There's double trigger RSUs and so on that allow you to have reasonable tax treatment, due to the theoretical threat of loss if liquidity isn't available. I worked at a company that had this at least while I was there.

In theory they provide market liquidity such that for anyone who REALLY wants to go, at any time prior to and potentially even during the event, there remain some options available for purchase; as opposed to basically spinning the lottery on whether you get to go or not, especially for oversubscribed events.

Wyoming?

I think the wet cloth is meant to increase friction between the surfaces

> relying on node.js

When did people start hating node and what do they have against it?

Notionally, opening new banks and/or buying an existing one that lacks current customers is feasible. Presumably once you do that, you could easily plug into FedWire/FedACH/FedNow, which would allow you to process electronic payments on behalf of whomever you choose to bank, as long as you comply with all the KYC/AML and other finance regs. You might not be able to process visa and mastercard, but virtually any of your customers' customers presumably still have financial accounts that are enabled on Fed rails, which will not be as likely to discriminate. Requiring end-customers to initiate payment (push) as opposed to doing pull, would also reduce transaction reversal risk.

I don't really the ultimate purpose of the position taken by either side here, but it does seem to me that there's a path by which both can coexist, even if difficult.

I think GP's point is that you should always seek to apply the law correctly, hopefully setting precedent for its correct application for everyone in the future.