Talk:Kraken (company)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) anybody but those who think WP should be static and that new articles cannot have be allowed any space for devt would not be so quick (5 mins!) to label them for speedy deletion. What is wrong with WP today is the impossibility of contributing to it. Anybody except the afore-described could do a simple web search and see Kraken is an org which matches the other similar orgs which have uncontested articles here at WP. So butt out. Let people contribute. I have added two links very easily found as to the orgs prominence in its field. Please help expand the article. Write, don't burn. Thanks --Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEPROD
Remarks above indicate this in not an uncontroversial deletion. Evidence of notability in cited sources:, ,. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why DMY dates?
When I got here, I found that the vast majority of dates were in [D]D Monthname YYYY format, despite this being an article on an American company. While it's not use DMY dates for US subjects, it's weird, outside US military subjects. There were a bunch of ISO dates in the citations, too, obviously dumped there by someone's citation script, so I normalized those to the already dominant DMY format, per MOS:DATEVAR. I think there were less than 10 dates in the entire page in the expected MDY (Monthname [D]D, YYYY) format. But I think that is what the article should actually be using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
Objections etc. are welcome. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, @TrangaBellam - as an editor who has contributed a bit to this page in the past, I appreciate your work towards a more concise entry. A few things I think might warrant reinsertion: (1) the availability of the service (i.e., how many states and countries) seems relevant and purely factual, (2) the fact that Kraken was one of the first bitcoin exchanges to be listed on Bloomberg is relevant to both the industry and the history of the company, and (3) the SPDI charter is absolutely noteworthy - again, in context of the crypto industry's evolution towards broader acceptance and integration. I don't think I have much of an issue with your other edits and deletions. I may revisit these three points a bit when I have the time. Thanks! Loslistos (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against (2). Please avoid creating useless subsections. Find me sources about the importance of (3). TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay... if you had nothing against (2), what was the reason for the full reversion, rather than working with my edits?
 * SPDI charters are important in the industry because they allow for direct cash deposits and withdrawals - there are pros and cons for consumers, for sure, but I don't think there's a question that the construct itself (and the fact that Kraken was the first crypto exchange to receive one) is notable. Here are some sources on this issue:
 * https://sites.law.duke.edu/thefinregblog/2021/04/06/restoring-order-in-cryptos-wild-west/
 * https://dfi.wa.gov/newsletter/winter-20202021/emergence-virtual-currency-and-digital-assets-financial-institutions
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fed-battles-wyoming-cryptocurrency-powell-brainard-bitcoin-digital-assets-spdi-fintech-11638308314
 * Loslistos (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All I see is a WSJ op-ed. Primary sources do not count. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall you remove content under dubious reasons, I will request arbitration enforcement. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly was the "dubious" content removal? All I've done is re-include the SPDI mention, which is obviously worthy even if you don't care to see that, and I added needed balance to the Work Culture section - nothing in my edits removed the crux of that story, nor would I want to. I simply rounded out the actual facts with one additional legitimate source (instead of an entire section relying on one anonymously sourced piece) and an aim towards achieving NPoV. Isn't that what we're here for? You seem to have no interest in engaging/evolving the content on this page, and your tendency to rely on bulk reversion when you don't like something lacks good faith. Loslistos (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Like, what in the world is your problem with shifting the items in the Controversies section so that they appear chronological? This is the kind of thing that shows absolutely no interest in working with other members of the community. Loslistos (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Weird link in see also
Linking an article about "best crypto exchanges" in the see also seems very iffy at best 77.63.111.59 (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)