Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItBit (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Some people felt that the sources presented were rehashed press releases; there's no consensus on that particular, but they clearly failed to convince the other participants that they met our requirements. Salting was suggested, but I don't see any support for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ItBit

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/ItBit
• Articles for deletion/ItBit (2nd nomination)

ItBit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, Note: there are literally thousands of companies we do not have articles on which have 'trust charters' and have gained over $5m in venture funding. these do not improve its notability. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Lord, Steven (2016-04-16). "Bankchain & itBit: Settling on the blockchain". Modern Trader. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     One company, itBit, began its operations as a bitcoin exchange. But as interest in the blockchain began to skyrocket, and financial institutions began exploring its usage, the company used its deep knowledge of how the blockchain works to create a settlement system called Bankchain.

     ...

     itBit CEO Chad Cascarilla graduated from Notre Dame in 1999 and cut his teeth in financial services at Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. He learned the financial sector’s administrative pitfalls, and would go on to co-found hedge fund sponsor Cedar Hill Capital Partners before launching an early stage growth fund dedicated to bitcoin/digital currency-related startups. In 2012, itBit was born.

     ...

     itBit was the first firm in its space to receive a license from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) allowing the firm to create the itBit Trust Company (ITC). The qualification as a trust company and regulated custodian was a tremendous coup for the company and offers it many regulatory — i.e., competitive — advantages in New York. Chief among them is that users of Bankchain are able to shift assets to one another across the platform without having to rely on regulated, centralized actors who facilitate fee-based transactions.

     ...

     For now, itBit and other companies working on private distributed ledger systems in finance are content that institutional interest is rising, a welcome change from a few years ago when very few on Wall Street took bitcoin and the blockchain seriously. This year, itBit’s tech team is implementing ACH deposits and real-time streaming market data, and announced in February that it is expanding services in London, the Middle East and Africa. Earlier this year, the company hired Jason Nabi from Societe Generale, who has more than 20 years in securities services and post-trade operations; just one example of a successful trading infrastructure executive joining a blockchain company.

  2. Madura, Jeff (2016). International Financial Management (13 ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 696. ISBN 1337099732. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The book notes:

     As the number of users of bitcoins has grown, the lack of protection for bitcoin owners and the potential for illegal activity has led to some regulations. In 2015, the state of New York granted a banking trust charter to itBit Trust Co., making it the first fully regulated bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin accounts at itBit are backed by mandatory capital reserves, and dollar accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Previously, some MNCs were reluctant to accept bitcoins because many banks were unwilling to set up bitcoin accounts, so an MNC had to conver the bitcoins to another currency at an exchange and then transfer the converted amount to a bank; now bitcoins can be converted to dollars at itBit and immediately moved into a dollar account. To prevent hacking, itBit keeps bitcoin owners' wallets offline and moves the bitcoins online only as needed. To obtain the charter, itBit had to meet higher consumer protection and security standards than other bitcoin exchanges meet. In addition, New York now requires bitcoin dealers to obtain a "bitlicense" to operate in the state. The U.S. Treasury is also developing rules for cryptocurrencies.

  3. Popper, Nathaniel (2015-05-07). "Bitcoin Exchange Receives First License in New York State". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     New York State’s top financial regulator has granted the first license to a Bitcoin exchange, allowing it to open legally to customers across the country.

     The exchange, itBit, said Thursday morning that it was beginning to take on customers in the United States immediately after receiving a banking trust charter from New York State’s Department of Financial Services and its superintendent, Benjamin M. Lawsky, who has been trying for some time to bring new rules to the fledgling virtual currency industry.

     In addition to the new license, itBit, which has offices in New York and Singapore, also announced on Thursday that it had won $25 million in new financing and had appointed three prominent board members: Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Bill Bradley, the former New Jersey senator; and Robert H. Herz, a Morgan Stanley director.

     The trust company charter gives itBit a banklike status and appears to make it the winner in a race among Bitcoin exchanges to become the first to be fully regulated in the United States.

     ...

     The company was founded by several people with Wall Street experience, including the chief executive, Mr. Cascarilla, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. The company’s chief operating officer, Andrew Chang, came to itBit from Google.

  4. Vincent, James (2013-11-12). "itBit, a NASDAQ-powered Bitcoin currency exchange, raises $3.25m in funding". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     A new currency exchange for the digital crypto-currency Bitcoin integrating technology used by the NASSAQ has raised $3.25 million in funding.

     The Singapore-based itBit hopes to differentiate itself from other Bitcoin currency exchanges by offering greater security and compliance with established banking standards.

     ...

     This current round of funding from Canaan Partners and RRE Ventures brings itBit’s total funding to $5.5m.

     Although itBit is fully compliant with financial regulations in Singapore it is not available to trading for those living in the US.

  5. Nasr, Reem (2015-05-07). "NY grants first banking license to bitcoin exchange itBit". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     A New York City-based bitcoin exchange itBit has become the first to receive a charter under New York banking laws.

     ItBit is a commercial exchange that trades the virtual currency. Thursday's announcement makes it the first company to receive a charter from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

     ...

     The company also announced the itBit Trust Co. that will provide full asset protection and FDIC insurance.

  6. Starkman, Dean (2015-05-08). "N.Y. issues charter to bitcoin firm". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     New York state issued its first charter for a bitcoin exchange, providing a major dose of legitimacy for the virtual currency as it begins to move from the margins of the financial system to the mainstream.

     ItBit Trust Co., a New York start-up that allows investors to trade dollars for bitcoins, started operating Thursday under a banking trust charter that it says allows it to function legally in all 50 states.

     The company also added three high-powered figures to its board and picked up $25 million in funding, further bolstering its stature and the growing acceptance of the digital currency.

     ...

     Added to ItBit's board of directors are Sheila C. Bair, former FDIC chairwoman; Bill Bradley, the former Democratic senator from New Jersey and member of the Senate Finance Committee; and Robert H. Herz, a director of both investment banking firm Morgan Stanley and mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae.

  7. Dugan, Kevin (2015-05-07). "ItBit makes New York bitcoin history". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     Wall Street is bullish on bitcoin.

     New York regulators on Thursday granted the first bitcoin exchange charter to itBit, a barely three-year old company with a deep bench of Wall Street heavy hitters.

     The charter, issued by the Department of Financial Services, comes as ex-bankers are increasingly looking to the digital currency as the next frontier in finance.

     Charles Cascarilla, itBit’s CEO — and a former Goldman Sachs analyst — told The Post that the company beefed up its board in January by bringing on Sheila Bair, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, and Robert Herz, who used to chair the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

     ...

     ItBit, which has been operating in Singapore since late 2012, worked with the DFS for more than a year in order to get the charter, Cascarilla said.

  8. LaCapra Tara, Lauren (2015-04-23). Wilchins, Dan; Craft, Diane (eds.). "Exclusive: Bitcoin exchange itBit seeks New York banking license". Reuters. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     In a little noticed move, bitcoin exchange itBit has filed for a banking license in New York, according to the state banking authority.

     Approval for the license may come in the next couple of weeks, people familiar with the matter told Reuters, which could make itBit the first bitcoin company to be regulated as a bank in the United States.

     The application is part of itBit’s plan to expand its business into different corners of financial services, and present itself as a trustworthy and reputable company. Right now, itBit operates as an exchange where buyers and sellers trade the bitcoin digital currency.

     ...

     ItBit, whose exchange operates in Singapore, moved its primary headquarters to New York last year, and hired Erik Wilgenhof Plante from eBay Inc as chief compliance officer. The company’s web site touts its anti-money laundering efforts and “know your customer” credentials, as well as its compliance in all jurisdictions in which it operates.

  9. Weinberger, Evan (2015-05-12). Laskowski, Kat; Shea, Philip (eds.). "ItBit's NY Virtual Currency License Could Provide Road Map". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

     The article notes:

     Instead, itBit, which has been operating in Singapore since November 2013, received a charter to operate as a limited-purpose trust company under the New York state banking law. This means it will have to operate under anti-money laundering, capital and other requirements that are nearly identical to those that would apply to a more traditional bank working under a state banking charter. Because of that, the firm will comply with regulations that are more stringent than applicable BitLicense requirements when they come into force.

     ...

     ItBit won the right to begin operations immediately once the DFS awarded it a charter, giving it a first-mover advantage and a seal of approval from one of the most aggressive regulators in the U.S.

  10. Metz, Cade (2015-05-08). "NY Backs Bitcoin Exchange. But It May Not Fly in California". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

      The article notes:

      BEN LAWSKY, NEW York's superintendent of financial services, trumpeted the news with a tweet. "Big day. New York issues first charter to a virtual currency company," the tweet read, just above an image of the charter, complete with Lawsky's signature and an official New York seal. Lawsky and New York's Department of Financial Services granted the charter on Thursday to itBit, officially approving the company's bitcoin exchange for use in the state, and on the same day, itBit opened the exchange to people nationwide, saying the charter provided the legal framework needed to operate in all fifty states. As The New York Times put it, itBit appeared to be "the winner in a race among bitcoin exchanges to become the first to be fully regulated in the United States."

      Certainly, the charter is a turning point for bitcoin, the digital currency that has found an audience online and has operated with government approval in many other countries but has been slow to win approval from US regulators. Carol Van Cleef, a partner with the national law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips who co-chairs the firm's global payments practices and closely follows digital currencies, says the charter is, "a validation that digital currencies are here to stay."

      But the turning point isn't a big as many believe it is. Though itBit says it can operate in all 50 states—and is indeed doing so—Van Cleef says some states may take a different view of the matter. "This is not necessarily going to be a blank pass to offer services in all states," she says, explaining that some states could require the company to win additional licenses beyond the New York charter. States like, say, California.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ItBit to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItBit participants: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Unscintillating (talk · contribs), and Hydronium Hydroxide (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also pinging the closer Juliancolton (talk · contribs), whose "no consensus" closing remains unexplained, but affects the current AfD.  My point here is that because of this closing, I no longer see a WP:SUSTAINED argument, even though at the first AfD there was consensus that notability was still emerging.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't remember having ever been prompted to justify my decision there before, so I'm not sure where this "remains unexplained" business comes from. That said, it was a pretty clear-cut "no consensus" call: reasonable arguments were advanced (including by yourself, confusingly enough) to show that the topic was notable, but the "delete" votes identified some legitimate issues as well. After three full weeks in which the final had seen no discussion whatsoever, it was abundantly evident that no consensus would emerge after a third relisting. Perhaps I should have specified WP:NPASR in the closing statement, but I've always felt that goes without saying in "no consensus" decisions for low-participation AfDs. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

When I put in bold "Delete", that should have been a strong indication that I thought the article should be deleted, and I Wikilinked WP:SUSTAINED.  I also stated that I did not support removal of the prod.  BTW, thank you for your reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete and salt for one year  Fails WP:SUSTAINED.  WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news shows that ItBit announced a rebranding on 24 September 2017.  The topic meets WP:GNG, as shown by WP:BEFORE and Cunard's sources.  But skimming Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do.  Nor is it our role to understand or support the company in its rebranding. 
  As the keep !vote said at the previous AfD, there is a parent company here, Paxos (company).  This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup.  My Google search for Paxos showed nothing in Google books. 
  If deleted and salted, a year from now, I expect that this article will be restored with its edit history as a redirect to Paxos.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I've added two paragraph breaks, to emphasize that the sentence "This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup" is discussing Paxos, not ItBit.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional substub, and the mentioned sources are little better than press releases. Some of them are rewritten PR, that's all. Kill this spam with fire. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I can understand a WP:TNT deletion (don't entirely agree, but don't feel particularly motivated to rewrite the article), however don't understand the argument for salting. Unscintillating's SUSTAINED argument is fair. There doesn't really appear to be significant post-2016 coverage except perhaps for part of an analyst report. In Jul 16, it was #2 in BTC/USD trades but appears to be barely in the top 10 today (and outside that if BTC/USDT is included). Nor does there appear to be any real coverage of Paxos -- their partnership with Euroclear recently dissolved, which isn't promising.

A solution might be to redirect Paxos (company) to Euroclear and (briefly) cover the JV in context; and redirect ItBit to Digital currency exchange with capsule summaries added for exchanges with sufficient RS (including defunct ones such as Mt. Gox)... but that would probably open cans of worms given the edit history. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - the sourcing offered above does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It's mostly about the company's hopes, plans and aspirations, as in:

• ItBit is implementing ..., or
• "ItBit’s NY Virtual Currency License Could Provide Road Map", etc.

WP:TOOSOON also applies -- the company has not achieved anything that would make it Wiki-notable just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: ItBit passes WP:SUSTAINED. Regarding Unscintillating's "This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup", it was founded in 2013, not 2016. There are sources about the company in 2013, 2015, and 2016, which means it passes WP:SUSTAINED in that there are not just "brief bursts of news coverage".

  Regarding Unscintillating's "Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do", itBit became the first bitcoin company to be regulated as a bank in the United States after it received a license from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

  The company received an extensive profile in the Modern Trader magazine here. It received significant coverage in the book International Financial Management. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Related Bitcoin AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete I concur that the sourcing presented does not meet our inclusion criteria. It fails either CORPDEPTH or ORGIND. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Inclusion in a textbook on finance strongly suggests that WP:SUSTAINED has been, and will continue to be, met. No problems there with depth, independence, or secondary sourcing either.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that the textbook presents ItBit's way of dealing in Bitcoin not only as a historical first, but as a turning point in the finance world's view of Bitcoin.

The Cade Metz article in Wired also is interesting in that it is explicitly sourced to a tweet—a primary source, making the article a secondary source for the information about ItBit's regulatory status.

Ironically, the assertion that these articles are derived from PR is itself presented without any evidence. They sound like PR? No doubt. Any brief news report that happens to be favorable to a company is likely to sound like PR.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ORGIND makes it clear that recycled PR sourcing does not count towards establishing notability, and brief news reports on corporations almost always fail WP:ORG, either on CORPDEPTH or ORGIND. The sourcing here also fails these guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence has been presented to show that even one of these sources, let alone all or most of them, are actually "recycled PR" or were otherwise authored by ItBit. Some do quote company personnel, but all include significant material not derived from what they quote from ItBit.

I have yet to see WP:CORPDEPTH used as an argument for deletion, here or elsewhere, in a way that is true to what it actually says. This guideline makes it clear that the detail it requires can be pieced together from multiple sources, as long as they are not "trivial or incidental" mentions. It defines such a mention by giving a list of examples, none of which resembles any of the sources here. All of the provided examples have one of two characteristics. Either (1) they are both very brief and irrelevant to the principal point of the source in which they occur, or (2) they are what is elsewhere called "indiscriminate publicity", such as routine restaurant reviews—every restaurant gets reviewed by local news—or mergers and acquisitions of subsidiaries.

The nomination statement against ItBit essentially makes the argument that the material in the current Wikipedia page is routine/indiscriminate, true of "literally thousands of companies". And indeed that is true of having $5 million in venture funding. But it is not true of, for example, being the first fully regulated Bitcoin exchange in history. The sources Cunard quotes should have ended any doubt of notability.

—Syrenka V (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Update on sourcing: I've now found a few sources not included in Cunard's list:
  • A couple of press releases, not from itBit but from the New York State Department of Financial Services, documenting itBit's status as the first virtual currency company chartered by the state. The second one is about a different company that got a later charter, but is worth knowing about because it gives a more complete timeline. These press releases are of course primary sources, but they are independent of itBit—and they demonstrate that primary sources for secondary news stories exist that are independent of itBit's PR.
  • A New York Business Journal article reporting on itBit's licensing, sourced not to company sources, but to a statement by Benjamin Lawsky, New York's state superintendent of financial services.
  • A law journal article likewise commenting on itBit as the holder of the first state trust company license (for a cryptocurrency exchange firm).

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Cunard makes a good case by arguing that there are enough sources present to use for this article. However, nine months after the previous AfD, no progress in sourcing is made. To go even further: a week after the start of the second AfD, we still basically have the same poor article as we had in January this year (although one reference was added). So, unless something will change drastically, a deletion of this article is the best option. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.