I know that the way I view this whole situation is very different from many others here. I see one side that wants or feels that ST deserves to be punished for their error, whether just because they have a beef with ST or because they want to profit from the situation, or simply because that's the way they interpret the rules/laws.
I feel that laws/rules are written with intent or purpose to see that justice is done: to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. I see varying degrees in the laws as well. An example would be the difference between accidental death/injury vs premeditated murder. In both cases, someone loses their life, and someone is or could be responsible for taking it. One is not a crime (unless it's determined to be involuntary homicide) and the other is the most serious of all crimes. The actual act could be identical in both cases. Some here are saying that ST committed murder while the evidence shows clearly that it was an accident. Would justice be served by meting out a punishment for murder when it was just an accident? Absolutely not. ST has made a mess, and they do need to clean it up, but I firmly believe that they will be given much leeway in just how the cleanup is accomplished.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
