Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

dirtybubblemedia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 216 posts

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#51

Post by cryptoanon »

HelloNurse wrote: post #43
cryptoanon wrote: post #8

I really do not like this article and the discourse here for several reasons: 1. The entire Coindesk article lacks meaningful substance. For instance, we have zero idea about what those $7.4 billion of “loans” are. It’s really irresponsible to say that they’re insolvent. If you believe, so, you are applying no more rigor to your understanding of the space than the idiots who say HODL YOLO HFSP. If the liabilities are…

> If the liabilities are collateralized by assets on their balance sheet, then the financial risk is not to Alameda but the lender! Fair point, but why do you seem to think you are defending Alameda? Collateralizing loans from fools with your own brand of worthless bullshit is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

What if the loans are minted DAI? How is that a Ponzi?

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#52

Post by cryptoanon »

bhouston wrote: post #46
cryptoanon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this guy as well as a bunch of people on Twitter who have been clout chasing ambulance chasers, running over the truth to chase a story. The formula is this: 1. Create an helpful explainer thread to explain some crisis (ex-post) 2. Start to make vague predictions about relatively easy to predict things (like that Celsius is going to go down, a couple days before it technically goes down). 3. Refer your readers…

"If it wasn't for these damn twitter personalities messing up the plans, they would have gotten away with it." You sound like a Scooby Doo villain. If these companies are not run well, they can be brought down by mere twitter personalities. This is a stress test. Those who are run well, will survive this. Another analogy: If you build a house out of straw (because you cut corners) should you blame the big bad wolf wh…

Sure you can say this is a stress test - I’m just saying it’s misinformation. I am annoyed by people who spread misinformation for clout. Applies to both the bullish credit and the bearish crowd.

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#53

Post by chinathrow »

phphphphp wrote: post #11
pixelpoet wrote: post #6

I'm continually surprised by how many "major" crypto firms I've never heard of before (being familiar with the space) suddenly are regarded as big names when they go under. Wake me up when it's Kraken or something, i.e. a company someone may actually have heard of.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but just in case it's sincere: Alameda are considered a lynch-pin of the crypto industry, they're holding up pretty much everything... and by extension, FTX is far more important than Kraken. If Alameda implode, it'll be far worse than 3AC's implosion. I don't think it's possible to kill the crypto industry, but Alameda's implosion would be the most likely event to cause it.

> I don't think it's possible to kill the crypto industry, but Alameda's implosion would be the most likely event to cause it.

As a bystander, it's hard to grasp the likeliness of this happenning, can someone elaborate on what would be able to trigger it?

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#54

Post by RuggedPineapple »

cryptoanon wrote: post #40
phphphphp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alameda's story has many parallels with Celcius (and 3AC): if something happens that proves Alameda is insolvent, will you return to this analysis and hold the same viewpoint, that it's unhelpful to consider that their solvency may well hinge on value of illiquid nonsense assets? The problem Celcius had was not that they were lending to retail, it's that their entire investment thesis was based on insane bets with ca…

3AC had been packed to the gills with uncollateralized loans. Since then, most lenders have recalled loans and cleaned up their toxic balance sheet.

When it's collateralized with crypto it's uncollateralized. 3AC learned this. Like half the exchanges have learned this over the last year. There is no inherent value in any of them, there is no hard floor of assets, as the market continues to tank that 'collateral' becomes/remains worthless. It's turtles all the way down.

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#56

Post by rufusroflpunch »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #55

Being an avid HN reader, I've been loosely following the crypto/NFT market with various sentiments oscillating between disbelief and facepalm. The real question would be: is there anything that is not a scam in this market?

Owning and holding Bitcoin is not a scam. That's about it.

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#57

Post by Mistletoe »

cryptoanon wrote: post #8

I really do not like this article and the discourse here for several reasons: 1. The entire Coindesk article lacks meaningful substance. For instance, we have zero idea about what those $7.4 billion of “loans” are. It’s really irresponsible to say that they’re insolvent. If you believe, so, you are applying no more rigor to your understanding of the space than the idiots who say HODL YOLO HFSP. If the liabilities are…

The guy that wrote it, Dirty Bubble, was big on the Celsius exposé train and he is trying to strike gold again. Idk how accurate any of it is though but that’s Dirty Bubble’s history and backstory. Kind of like FatMan and Luna. They want to stay relevant and get the next “big scoop”.

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#58

Post by phphphphp »

cryptoanon wrote: post #40
phphphphp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alameda's story has many parallels with Celcius (and 3AC): if something happens that proves Alameda is insolvent, will you return to this analysis and hold the same viewpoint, that it's unhelpful to consider that their solvency may well hinge on value of illiquid nonsense assets? The problem Celcius had was not that they were lending to retail, it's that their entire investment thesis was based on insane bets with ca…

3AC had been packed to the gills with uncollateralized loans. Since then, most lenders have recalled loans and cleaned up their toxic balance sheet.

3AC was a prop trading firm flush with cash… until the curtain was lifted and it turns out it was just a big fraud. Alameda is a prop firm flush with cash…

Why do you assume that Alameda isn’t “packed to the gills” with financial gremlins?

If you asked anybody in the space about 3AC or Alameda 12 months ago, you’d have heard the same thing about them: prop trading firms that have been hugely successful investing their own money and thus have billions upon billions of self-generated money to invest. Today, 3AC is gone and we are now discovering Alameda has huge liabilities and (potentially) mostly junk assets.

What’s a bigger leap: Alameda is like 3AC, or that the information we’ve seen so far isn’t representative and actually alameda are doing great?

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#59

Post by NotYourLawyer »

cryptoanon wrote: post #8

I really do not like this article and the discourse here for several reasons: 1. The entire Coindesk article lacks meaningful substance. For instance, we have zero idea about what those $7.4 billion of “loans” are. It’s really irresponsible to say that they’re insolvent. If you believe, so, you are applying no more rigor to your understanding of the space than the idiots who say HODL YOLO HFSP. If the liabilities are…

> If the liabilities are collateralized by assets on their balance sheet, then the financial risk is not to Alameda but the lender!

No, the risk is to both Alameda and the lender. An undercollateralized loan doesn’t just go away. It’s partially secured and partially unsecured debt.

Re: Crypto trading firm Alameda Research might be insolvent

#60

Post by boc »

cryptoanon wrote: post #52
bhouston wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it wasn't for these damn twitter personalities messing up the plans, they would have gotten away with it." You sound like a Scooby Doo villain. If these companies are not run well, they can be brought down by mere twitter personalities. This is a stress test. Those who are run well, will survive this. Another analogy: If you build a house out of straw (because you cut corners) should you blame the big bad wolf wh…

Sure you can say this is a stress test - I’m just saying it’s misinformation. I am annoyed by people who spread misinformation for clout. Applies to both the bullish credit and the bearish crowd.

You have no evidence that this post is misinformation. You’re just choosing to believe it’s untrue.
Post reply on HN