Binance to acquire FTX

Post by eru » Wed, Nov 09, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

zeven7 wrote: post #623

barry-cotter wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Customer deposits should meet liabilities 1:1. If they don't, somebody is lying. That’s not how banking works. You hold illiquid assets. Sometimes they move in price. If they move enough in price you’re insolvent. Limiting bank runs is a genuinely hard problem.

Exchanges aren't banks, and crypto exchanges especially shouldn't be banks. Crypto is liquid and can be redeemed in its own denomination instantly if you hold it in a simple wallet. That's what exchanges should be doing. They shouldn't be doing fractional reserve banking, and a run shouldn't be possible. Preventing runs on a crypto exchange is exceedingly easy if the operators aren't taking risks with client funds.

Post by eru » Wed, Nov 09, 2022, 4:17 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #602

hailwren wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point is that if you have the money to buy $1.1B of something off market, you should also have the money to buy $1.1B of something on market. Any time someone posts an ask at or below $22, you simply fill the order.

beyond the fact that the dynamics of saying "we'll take everything at a certain price up to $1.1B" will likely lead to much more than that showing up on the market and leading to a price crash anyways... I imagine that an off market transaction can involve things like not sending $1.1B in cash to the other person the same day.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 09, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

eddsh1994 wrote: post #388

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by eru » Wed, Nov 09, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #334

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

Because they think the people they're most similar to are respected old-school hackers (rms, jwz, etc.) instead of carnival hucksters like P. T. Barnum.

Post by user_named » Wed, Nov 09, 2022, 4:25 AM UTC

Jasper_ wrote: post #570

a4isms wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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")

If there's one thing I really dislike about HN culture, it's the consistent derailing of a thread to "um, actually" someone on a semantics distinction that literally nobody has ever been confused by, or to shoehorn in new terminology that doesn't improve communication in any way.