Even assuming that they moved-fast-and-broke-things on the legal side, the development lifecycle of something as important as replacing conventional banking takes months, if not more.
Robinhood likely lost a good amount of development opportunity cost with the cancellation.
Even assuming that they moved-fast-and-broke-things on the legal side
Doesn't moving fast and breaking things on-as you say-"the legal side" in essence mean breaking the law, or did you mean something else and I've misunderstood?
Right, that much I grok, but when you say "move fast and broke things", in the context of "relating-to-the-law" what are you hypothesizing was 'broke'?
I think it's a matter of phrasing perhaps, that has me a bit confused of what your post is suggesting as a matter relating to the law.
