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

Binance to acquire FTX

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 790 posts

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#361

Post by shapefrog »

eftychis wrote: post #196
shapefrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12:38 PM · Nov 7, 2022 2) FTX has enough to cover all client holdings. [0] 4:03 PM · Nov 8, 2022 2) Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1. This is one of the main reasons we’ve asked Binance to come in. [1] has enough to cover all client holdings ---> not enough to cover all client holding in 24 hours. Either they los…

As other people said, usually a lot of assets are illiquid in 24 hours. You can say I have money to buy this house, but if I ask you for the money the next 24 hours, most people will say they need more time to liquidate. It is actually irresponsible to the users (risk management wise) to be keeping all that cash in hand 24/7. The easiest bad case example: are you keeping all your savings under your mattress? Edit/to…

> risk management wise

Short dated government bonds would be the safest. But tweet 0 he litterally says they dont do that, they keep the cash under the mattress and you can have it if you stop by. People stopped by and there was no cash under the mattress...

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#362

Post by shuckles »

dibt wrote: post #320
shuckles wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you consider cashing out pre-ICO tokens for bogus projects to “accredited investors” (ie retails) as “taking money”?

I have no doubt that anybody that had access to pre-release allocations were well aware of the risks. Net worth was likely checked. They don't need to be treated like a child. Probably a civil matter anyway - no expectation of jail, which was what the parent commenter referenced.

I was referring to insiders selling at ICO to retails. I’m sure insiders were savvy and made plenty of money.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#363

Post by w1nst0nsm1th »

hi5eyes wrote: post #103
ramish94 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of unregulated finance. There’s a reason the FDIC exists and all banks must be insured.

Quoted post unavailable.

I did not comment but I have some insight on regular finance and took a Udemy course on building your own crypto...

And I came to the conclusion that SBF is a crook and the whole crypto space is build on thin air.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#364

Post by guelo »

dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #248

Will be interesting to see how this assertive prediction from "someone in the industry" a few days ago plays out: >> Regardless if FTT collapses, it wouldn't matter cause insolvency both the asset and liability side of the balance sheet would go down. [1] We got our FTT collapse today, let's see if the "experts" are correct. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33467429

Lol wouldn't be surprised if dcolkitt is SBF or someone near him

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#365

Post by cguess »

purpleblue wrote: post #287
ucha wrote: post #16

SBF said "We don't invest client assets (even in treasuries)". [0] He then says the purpose of the transaction with Binance is to "clear out the liquidity crunches". [1] How could there be a liquidity crunch if assets are not invested? You can't do a bank run on an entity that doesn't function as a bank and doesn't invest clients assets... Something is shifty. [0] https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/158959828579870720…

Well, if the customers are holding FTT and they're trying to get rid of their FTT, that could cause the liquidity crisis. The crisis isn't with the customer assets, it's with their FTT side of the business.

Can't have a run if you can't withdrawl!

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#366

Post by crystaln »

ramish94 wrote: post #31
shapefrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12:38 PM · Nov 7, 2022 2) FTX has enough to cover all client holdings. [0] 4:03 PM · Nov 8, 2022 2) Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1. This is one of the main reasons we’ve asked Binance to come in. [1] has enough to cover all client holdings ---> not enough to cover all client holding in 24 hours. Either they los…

He mentions that they have everyone’s money, and then the very next tweet says “we’ll clear out liquidity crunches”. Literally a contradiction.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s easy to have illiquid funds. For example cold storage or locked funds.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#367

Post by eftychis »

shapefrog wrote: post #361
eftychis wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other people said, usually a lot of assets are illiquid in 24 hours. You can say I have money to buy this house, but if I ask you for the money the next 24 hours, most people will say they need more time to liquidate. It is actually irresponsible to the users (risk management wise) to be keeping all that cash in hand 24/7. The easiest bad case example: are you keeping all your savings under your mattress? Edit/to…

> risk management wise Short dated government bonds would be the safest. But tweet 0 he litterally says they dont do that, they keep the cash under the mattress and you can have it if you stop by. People stopped by and there was no cash under the mattress...

I agree. And it is sketchy when people give a guarantee we know they can't keep.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#368

Post by joemazerino »

xmonkee wrote: post #351
joyfylbanana wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody forces you to use Binance or FTX. I have been using Bitcoin for 10 years and I've always stored more 90% of my BTC in my own self-custody wallet, only used exchanges briefly.

What have you been "using" Bitcoin for, may I ask?

You may not ;)

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#370

Post by piva00 »

lottin wrote: post #329
mistercheph wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, this is not a contradiction. The statement means that they have enough illiquid assets to cover the withdrawal that they are working on converting into liquidity.

What do you mean illiquid? Worthless?

Illiquid just means that you can't cash it in quickly.

Cash is 100% liquid while a house is illiquid you might have millions US$ parked there but only if you manage to sell it, then you convert it into liquid cash.

Liquidity is a measure of how easy it'd be to trade a thing for another thing you want.

Post reply on HN