The tracing of thefts is certainly irrelevant if the BTC account holders are not associated with specific wallet partitions. And even if the BTC account holders are so associated, I am arguing such association is arbitrary, because the security methodology is fungible across all such wallet partitions, thus no such segregated account holders can be at a lower legal standing than the others of the same fungible asset. You are inventing an arbitrary mirage of partitioning. To be segregated, the assets must be meaningfully separate from each other, otherwise the segregation is not legally defined. Courts routinely look past obfuscation and directly to the salient attributes. Imagine if a bank had segregated fiat electronic balance accounts, and a hacker broke not the user's online access password, but some master password of the bank and stole balances from those accounts. Even if they were segregated, the losses would be charged to the bank and then to the accounts proportionally if the bank's assets were insufficient. You can't hold some users responsible for an arbitrary, luck-of-the-draw, meaningless partitioning which they have no control over. Segregation implies the user has control. The partitioning you are claiming can be traced, has no correspondence to the user's control over their account. The user doesn't even select which of the internal Bitfinex wallets they want their account to be associated with. Thus all segregated account are fungible w.r.t. to those arbitrary wallet partitions.