Thousands of links, including mentions in every major news publication. They aren't going to disappear or be retroactively rewritten.
Nor would the previous owner's past be reason for someone not to trust the current owner of the brand. You wouldn't stop trusting Bitstamp or BTC-e if they happened to buy the MtGox domain. Nor would someone reading an old NY Times article stop to research the past owner's history.
The grand vision of Coinbase isn't to capture as much of the Bitcoin speculation market as possible, it's to capture as much of the e-commerce payment market as possible by offering lower transaction fees and eliminating chargeback risk for merchants. If, for example, they took over the MtGox domain, and that helped stabilize Bitcoin and continue its push towards the mainstream, then "snitko's and 0.02% of our target market's image of us is tained by Gox's past" is probably a good tradeoff.
I think no one would be willing to buy MtGox knowing they wouldn't be paying the debt. Imagine MtGox customers going to mtgox.com, then being redirected to Coinbase: it's like saying "Hi, we bought MtGox. We know you've lost your money there, not gonna return it. Come do business with us instead!". That's nuts and is going to hurt buyer's image a lot.
Comments
3. The buyers are only interested in acquiring the domain/brand, not the company's obligations and debt. They would get sold off in bankruptcy anyway.
And what would be the point of that? No one would ever trust anything to Gox, unless it returns the money.
Thousands of links, including mentions in every major news publication. They aren't going to disappear or be retroactively rewritten.
Nor would the previous owner's past be reason for someone not to trust the current owner of the brand. You wouldn't stop trusting Bitstamp or BTC-e if they happened to buy the MtGox domain. Nor would someone reading an old NY Times article stop to research the past owner's history.
The grand vision of Coinbase isn't to capture as much of the Bitcoin speculation market as possible, it's to capture as much of the e-commerce payment market as possible by offering lower transaction fees and eliminating chargeback risk for merchants. If, for example, they took over the MtGox domain, and that helped stabilize Bitcoin and continue its push towards the mainstream, then "snitko's and 0.02% of our target market's image of us is tained by Gox's past" is probably a good tradeoff.
I think no one would be willing to buy MtGox knowing they wouldn't be paying the debt. Imagine MtGox customers going to mtgox.com, then being redirected to Coinbase: it's like saying "Hi, we bought MtGox. We know you've lost your money there, not gonna return it. Come do business with us instead!". That's nuts and is going to hurt buyer's image a lot.
Then shouldn't Enron and Lehman Brothers be highly valuable brands?
The different business units in various countries for those organisations were sold off.