Live data from Hacker News

Binance to acquire FTX

bloomberg.com

481–490 of 790 posts

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#481

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

They go by acronyms on social media, namely twitter, the main place people interact with them https://twitter.com/cz_binance https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX

CZ is Czechia though

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#482
post #251
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

Rest assured that the regulations are coming because the crypto simply did a speed-run of unregulated securities market and repeated every fraud or scam that the traditional markets went through over the history. In the process, huge fortunes were created and libertarians were empowered(but not enough to be the main political power). Congrats to them but there's nothing anarchist left in crypto, they even end up cons…

> the crypto simply did a speed-run of unregulated securities market and repeated every fraud or scam that the traditional markets went through over the history.

I think the whole endeavor may end up strengthening the traditional economy - crypto space repeating centuries of fraud in a decade is effectively a booster shot - suddenly it's obvious why all those laws ended up in the books in the first place.

> and libertarians were empowered(but not enough to be the main political power)

In a sense, they've discovered a novel way of attempting to gain power - I don't think many people expected someone could wish a parallel economy into being and leverage that to for political gain.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably a lot of discussion is open to anyone (Bitcoin mailing list, Core github repo), where anyone is free to post their opinion on topics themselves. It is not democratic as in "you have a vote to force others to comply to the majority", but more a democratic in "you can try to convince enough people that the major chain becomes how you like it, while the others run a minority fork". People think "where the money…

> "you can try to convince enough people that the major chain becomes how you like it, while the others run a minority fork". FWIW, that is also true for fiat. You can become an economist, or a journalist, or a politician, or a pundit, and try to convince your country to do economics differently. It's a tall order, but it's been known to succeed. If this seems harder than the equivalent for blockchains, it's only bec…

Good point. I think the subtle difference is that the traditional political democracy coerces the minority to use the system how they like it (ofc. not everywhere, maybe more on the money/legal tender side of things), whereas with Bitcoin there is no coercion by the majority. The majority would accept one set of currency, while others might use another, however markets will probably always decide on a winner when it comes to currency, which could feel as if you are "forced". Definitely a nuanced topic.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#484
post #370
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It is also very hard to trade worthless things for expensive things you want.

Insolvent institutions like to claim they are illiquid when in reality they are insolvent.

We've seen this happen over and over during the 2008 crisis.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty uncommon for exchanges to do all their market making directly, and many of the ones that do still rely on outside market making. FTX was almost the exception since Alameda spun out of it IIRC

> pretty uncommon for exchanges to do all their market making directly Point is, in real finance, it's pretty uncommon for exchanges to do any of their market making. Largely to ensure they can project confidence in crises. Market makers blow up. Exchanges shouldn't.

Do exchanges in real finance even have long term customer deposits?

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#486
post #390
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are DeFi protocols where you can lock-up crypto assets (eg FTT) and use those locked assets as collateral to borrow another crypto asset (eg ETH). That all happens "on chain" and there is no way for the protocol to know if there are corresponding balance sheet liabilities.

I don't know what the OP was referring to, and I don't know if this is what they were doing, but something like this could happen.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#487
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

An anarchist experiment that plays into capitalism's worst instincts and rapidly encountered "please give the money back to the rich people" when the first big ETH theft was pulled off.

Anarchism should be about dismantling hierarchies. Crypto has further entrenched owners against the rest.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood. Where's the democracy here, exactly? A regular user cannot afford to participate in the decision making of the system in any meaningful way. In fact, today, most users don't even directly use it, instead relying on processors such as Coinbase. The "not your keys, not your coins" meme exists due to this. The original paper described a democratic system where people voted with their processors, but…

Arguably a lot of discussion is open to anyone (Bitcoin mailing list, Core github repo), where anyone is free to post their opinion on topics themselves. It is not democratic as in "you have a vote to force others to comply to the majority", but more a democratic in "you can try to convince enough people that the major chain becomes how you like it, while the others run a minority fork". People think "where the money…

I can send Putin an email. If I'm sufficiently convincing he might decide to call off his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That doesn't change the nature of his autocracy.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#489
post #426

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

You see the same thing with Middle East Leaders - MBS, MBZ, etc. When the names are even semi-complex and the reach is global, people default to acronyms.

Pedantic nit:

Those are initialisms. An initialism is when the individual letters are individually pronounced, like "emm-bee-ess."

An acronym is when the initial letters are pronounced as a word, e.g. SOAR ("Situation Options Act Review-and-Reassess")

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#490
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…

The linked article addresses this:

> Why was there a liquidity crunch in the first place? A crypto exchange is a weird sort of business, in many ways more like a brokerage than a traditional exchange.

> A lot of FTX’s business is in perpetual futures, a leveraged product, sometimes levered 20 to 1. If you are an exchange and you are in this sort of business, you will need to come up with the extra $100 to lend to your customer. Presumably that doesn’t come from your equity: You are doing some sort of borrowing, perhaps from other customers, [2] perhaps from outside financing sources, perhaps from your affiliated hedge fund, etc. You will have some customers who owe you money, and others whom you owe money. You will be like a bank. If everyone to whom you owe money demands their money back at once, you will need to get the money back from the ones who owe you money, which might be hard. (You might not have a contractual right to demand the money back right away, or it might be rude and bad for business, or you might have to liquidate them to get the money back and that would blow up the value of your collateral.) In broad strokes this is a reasonable description of what happened to Bear Stearns, a brokerage that financed its customers’ positions.

[2] (footnote in original article): Effectively a perpetual future involves you borrowing from and lending to your customer in offsetting ways: If the price goes up, you owe money to the long and the short owes money to you. If the short doesn’t pay you, then you still owe money to the long.

Post reply on HN