81–90 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
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…
This is a popular idea, but it's not just wrong, it's both systematically and personally dangerous. I am entitled to come to conclusions based on the partial information I have. If someone doesn't like those conclusions, it's on them to increase my access to information. The alternative means that anyone and everyone can hide anything they like behind partial information, then declare any suspicions baseless and grou…
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck. Or a duck robot, or my kid running around with my phone again imitating a duck while watching duck YouTube videos.
Whatever the conclusion, state facts but don’t state conclusions as facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The average case scenario is some of it is ponzi mixed in with other non ponzi, and in my book I'll call even a "10% ponzi", a ponzi scheme. Maybe you have a different bar to calling something a ponzi, so knock yourself out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thei…
Alameda is helmed by quants from Jane Street etc., they are supposed to do better with regard to risk management, forecasting, bet sizing. Their whole M.O. is that they are smarter and actually do math and that is the source of their success. https://www.alameda-research.com/our-team Whether that is true or not, I don’t know. But from their tweets and podcasts it does seem they approach things very differently and in…
The CEO worked at Jane Street for less than 18 months and appears to have had a fairly junior role there. I'm sure they are smart folks but there's a limit to how much you can learn in 18 months, in your first job after college.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thei…
I’m not saying alameda is not insolvent. Im saying that the burden of proof is on the author to prove that they are insolvent.
I know, having that huge pile of cash and not doing anything with it can lead to huuuuuge temptations, but that's what I'm paying the company to do. If I wanted to invest my funds into something I would move my money to a separate investment account that the institution can play with as they please (with some client-defined risk restrictions) and give me a percentage of profits
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…
This is a popular idea, but it's not just wrong, it's both systematically and personally dangerous. I am entitled to come to conclusions based on the partial information I have. If someone doesn't like those conclusions, it's on them to increase my access to information. The alternative means that anyone and everyone can hide anything they like behind partial information, then declare any suspicions baseless and grou…
It’s possible to get scammed by a person that’s telling you that something is a scam. That’s an affinity scam.
I’m not trying to tell you what to think. I’m saying that there are material flaws in the analysis.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no evidence that this post is misinformation. You’re just choosing to believe it’s untrue.
I do not have the burden of proof.
Why is it so difficult for trading companies to simply keep the money in the reserve and never touch it unless your client wants to liquidate his share? I know, having that huge pile of cash and not doing anything with it can lead to huuuuuge temptations, but that's what I'm paying the company to do. If I wanted to invest my funds into something I would move my money to a separate investment account that the institut…
This is simply not something that financial institutions are capable of doing themselves.