131–140 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On 2022 11/4 7:50 am Pacific, this was the top-ranked comment on this article on HN.
Why do you timestamp it ?
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.
It's not just a problem for the bank, it's threatening to the crypto ecosystem. Just as it would be if the binance tether thing ever implodes
As someone in the industry, it's almost certainly not . First very simple point, to become insolvent you have to actually take a loss somewhere. They may have a lot of junk tokens on their balance sheet, and these tokens may be overmarked, but Alameda's cost basis (most of them were from seed rounds) is still way below their current value. With Three Arrows it was very obvious where the loss was from, they were hyper…
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being insolvent.
"Insolvency
In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency. "
Insolvency deals with the inability to repay your debts (insufficient cash flow is the most common).
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”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I correct in understanding your argument that "so long as numbers keep going up, all will be fine"? Because there is a possibility that crypto never gains back the hype as late 2020, and Bitcoin never reaches the high of $69K ever again, in which case people who "bought and hold" at that time (including those who were encouraged to be "brave" by Matt Damon in a crypto.com ad) will never see (a portion of) their mo…
The solution to that is to not invest (or gamble) more than you are willing to lose and not to take financial advice from movie stars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. Recently they have cropped up a set of anonymous people who purport themselves to be insiders only to reveal complete ignorance about the topic at hand (otteroo on Twitter, for instance). Can you clarify this? By “they” do you mean this Substack? I didn’t see anything about “otteroo” or Twitter insiders in a quick search of the Substack, but I didn’t exhaustively search the entire backlog.
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…
It's easily falsifiable by Alameda
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The whole point of crypto was to be decentralized. For one company to go down and cause the industry to implode means the industry is on the wrong path and needs to be reset.
But there are tens of millions of new people (or even more) since the MtGox collapse in 2014 who haven't learned the lesson and ,,chasing yields'' or lending against their crypto tokens / leveraging their positions (the new forms of financializing BTC, aka not holding your own keys).
I personally know somebody who lost all his BTC / ETH by lending against it and buying more when BTC price was over $50k.
As someone in the industry, it's almost certainly not . First very simple point, to become insolvent you have to actually take a loss somewhere. They may have a lot of junk tokens on their balance sheet, and these tokens may be overmarked, but Alameda's cost basis (most of them were from seed rounds) is still way below their current value. With Three Arrows it was very obvious where the loss was from, they were hyper…
> First very simple point, to become insolvent you have to actually take a loss somewhere. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being insolvent. "Insolvency In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency. " Insolvency deals wit…
- is actually financially illiterate
Checks out, sadly.