This was kind of expected, to be fair... Tokens, where have we seen this happen...

Let's see how this goes.
once bitfinex starts using new users funds to try covering old balances(in the form of tokens).. automatically its a ponzi and things get nasty
Well they be doing such a thing? I thought this is what they didn't want
well im "hoping" the tokens work like company shares. where the tokens are reimbursed as bitcoins using the trade fee's income that bitfinex gets.. not robbing new customers deposits to pay existing customers withdrawals (the cryptorush ponzi i described in last post).. but instead the tokens are valued on the cashflow of bitfinex's income/profits from their fees.
thats my hope from a moral and legal side.. however lets do the maths on timescales to get reimbursed morally and in a legit way
so say a trade fee is, maker: 0.1% taker: 0.2% that's 0.3% fee per trade bit finex gets. now then, knowing bitfinex needs to continue operating (paying server costs, staff, electric and offices, etc) i would presume that on the better and legit option of the share theory. only 0.1% or less of each trade would go into a reimbursement pot and the other 0.2% covers business costs to continue running..
lets say trade volume was 10,000btc a day... thats only 10btc a day into the reimbursment pot
(0.1% of 10kvolume)if the numbers are right that 100kbtc was stolen/hacked/insider job/whatever.. it would take 10,000 days to repay everyone (~30 years)
lets say trade volume was 100,000btc a day. thats only 100btc a day into the pot
(0.1% of 100kvolume)if the numbers are right that 100kbtc was stolen.. 1,000 days to repay everyone (~3 years)
and obviously if they manage to do 300k volume.. ~1 year reimbusement of 100k theft/hack..
but if i see they say everyone will be paid off in weeks/months.. then the reasons would be:
1. ponzi - using new deposits to reimburse existing customers withdrawals
2. reserves - bitfinex using their own funds from the last 3 years trade fee's (doubt it as that moneys normally already spent on running costs)