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

381–390 of 790 posts

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#381

Post by billjings »

googlryas wrote: post #357
3001 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total unrelated but son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olusegun_Obasanjo . Numero uno looter of Africa

Why even reference it then? We have understood that sins of the father are not the sins of the child since at least the book of exodus(~500BC). If that tweeter has done something wrong in his life, then talk about it. But he didn't really have a choice on who birthed him. From the wiki page: > Some of his children were resentful that he gave them no special privileges and treated their mothers poorly.

I went to Georgia Tech with Dare. It's a great school, but it's not exactly the kind of place you send your scions of privilege.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#382

Post by joyfylbanana »

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?

- Long term "Savings account" - a volatile one, of course - I buy stuff from online with it, household items (In country I live you can basically buy anything with BTC) - Travel, I book hotels/flight with it and once I rented a boat for a family trip

In addition to that I now and then try to pay with Bitcoins at other stores. Last time got excited about boltcards (https://github.com/boltcard/boltcard) there are few places in my country which accept it, but it is quite a new thing.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#383

Post by isthisthingon99 »

epa wrote: post #114
mjr00 wrote: post #4

So after SBF came out yesterday and said FTX was totally fine.. it turns out they were insolvent and needed to get bailed out to cover withdrawals? Never a dull moment in the world of crypto.

It seems that Citadel may have short squeezed FTX's token and created this.

you're getting downvoted by people who didn't get the joke.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#384

Post by dpflan »

jonas21 wrote: post #275
TravelTechGuy wrote: post #201

Some more background: the companies were engaged in fighting over regulations, and on a personal basis between the 2 CEOs. It went down to really childish levels at some point. But one thing is undeniable: SBF (FTX CEO) was trying to weaponize US regulation against his biggest rival CZ (Binance CEO). CZ retaliated by selling the FTT token, exposed the fact FTX was over-leveraged, and took over. This is, as the kids o…

For those not up to date on crypto people, SBF is Sam Bankman-Fried [1] and CZ is Changpeng Zhao [2]. I don't know why they insist on being called by their initials like they're some sort of ticker symbol. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changpeng_Zhao

Maybe: Crypto is full of acronyms, token tickers are a great example and apropos here --> their names have been "tokenized"...?

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#385

Post by ww520 »

SilasX wrote: post #359
ww520 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just went over the issues on the balance sheet of Alameda Research, which is SBF's trading company. Of the $14.6 billion assets Alameda manages, almost $6 billion is FTT based. Alameda has heavy investment in Solana, Serum, and other alt-coins. It looks like the drop in their value has lowered Alameda's asset balance. Alameda borrowed FTT tokens from FTX to put them as assets in the balance sheet to shore it up. The…

> The size of the asset balance is probably used to obtain loans and liquidity. 1) Lenders don’t care about the liability side? 2) How does “liquidity” differ from “loans” here? That is, when would they do this to achieve one but not the other?

1. We don't know what the lending basis for FTT from FTX vs the claimed value of FTT on Alameda's book. FTX lent FTT at $10 to Alameda and then FTT inflated to $50 would mean Alameda has $50 asset vs $10 liability.

It's reported that Alameda Research has $14.6 billion in assets and $8 billion in liabilities. Some claim that Alameda's assets are "entirely illiquid." Nobody knows how bad things are. The only thing is that FTX has stopped the withdraws.

2. Loans for long term and liquidity for short term? Like overnight lending.

Edit: add more info.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#386

Post by codehalo »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #235
majani wrote: post #216

I'm glad a big government supporter such as SBF is out of crypto leadership. Crypto is an anarchist experiment and it should remain that way

> Crypto is an anarchist experiment And, like every anarchist experiment before it, it failed. It continues to draw in new suckers every day, and that is a problem for society. It doesn't matter if you didn't cause the problem. Because you live in that society, you still have to pay the cost to fix it or continue to take the losses from the problem existing. It's the same with slavery, not educating blacks, and then…

>But because I live in America, I have to either pay the cost to fix the problem or pay the ongoing cost of crime that the problem produces.

The "crime" the problem produces allow a lot of white men to put their kids through college, fooling themselves into thinking they are stopping "bad guys".

If you dont keep them busy, they would create far more crime than you think black folk do. They might even start storming the White House.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#387

Post by rich_sasha »

dpflan wrote: post #384
jonas21 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those not up to date on crypto people, SBF is Sam Bankman-Fried [1] and CZ is Changpeng Zhao [2]. I don't know why they insist on being called by their initials like they're some sort of ticker symbol. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changpeng_Zhao

Maybe: Crypto is full of acronyms, token tickers are a great example and apropos here --> their names have been "tokenized"...?

Ownership of personhood as documented by holding an NFT.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#388

Post by eddsh1994 »

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #182
max_ wrote: post #57

Its funny how a few days back some people on HN were saying FTX is unlikely to be illiquid because SBF is a genius from JaneStreet.

And people who knew what they were actually talking about were pointing out that it's unlikely anyone would have voluntarily left Jane Street as early as he did. But they were largely ignored.

Leaving Jane Street to become a Billionaire seems like a weird criticism

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#389

Post by aeyes »

Geee wrote: post #345
matheusmoreira wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That experiment already failed to be honest. Cryptocurrencies were prophesized to get rid of banks. Instead exchanges reinvented banks with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits. Cryptocurrencies were supposed to be in wide circulation just like USD, eliminating the need for fiat on/off ramps. Instead we got these centralized corporations and endless KYC/AML surveillance with none of the regulation and governmen…

Only about 10% (2M) of bitcoin are on exchanges: https://www.coinglass.com/Balance

You also have to take the ~4M estimated coins with lost keys into account.

If these stats are correct we closer to 15%. Which is a lot. I would have expected 0.1%.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#390

Post by SilasX »

ww520 wrote: post #385
SilasX wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The size of the asset balance is probably used to obtain loans and liquidity. 1) Lenders don’t care about the liability side? 2) How does “liquidity” differ from “loans” here? That is, when would they do this to achieve one but not the other?

1. We don't know what the lending basis for FTT from FTX vs the claimed value of FTT on Alameda's book. FTX lent FTT at $10 to Alameda and then FTT inflated to $50 would mean Alameda has $50 asset vs $10 liability. It's reported that Alameda Research has $14.6 billion in assets and $8 billion in liabilities. Some claim that Alameda's assets are "entirely illiquid." Nobody knows how bad things are. The only thing is t…

1) What is that replying to? I was asking why the borrowed FTT would make them more capable of getting loans if it came with a corresponding liability. That would only make sense if lenders didn't care about the liability balance sheet, which is ... non standard.

Edit: That is, you said the "size of the asset balance" is used to obtain loans. That makes it sound like merely increasing assets -- even if they come with liabilities, makes them more capable of getting loans.

Post reply on HN