[deleted]
Binance to acquire FTX
671–680 of 790 posts
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#672No post body was provided.
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#673Earlier 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.
Agreed, but in this case these tokens have suddenly become 'illiquid' because they have just become worthless. It seems that here the term 'illiquid' is being used as a euphemism.
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly the problem. This should be illegal, and people who do this should go to jail. Customer funds should be 1 to 1 backed with assets.
As long as noone is being lied to, I don't see any problems. Case A, tell your customers that their funds have asset backing, and have asset backing: fine. Case B: tell your customers that their funds have no asset backing, and have no asset backing: fine. (Those customers deserve what they get.) Case C: tell your customers nothing, and do whatever you feel like: fine. (Those customers deserve what they get.) Case D:…
Case D is what we are seeing over and over again, including this circumstance
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#675Earlier 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.
I enjoyed reading the diversion. I don't think it derailed anything, except perhaps for your reply.
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#676Binance was threatening to dump a huge amount of FTT tokens on the market. FTX has a big+vulnerable position in FTT. FTX asked Binance to sell them the tokens for a fixed price, so as not to crash the FTT token price. Binance declined - this was yesterday/today. Of course the price of FTT crashed today. And now Binance buys FTX to help them out... smells like Binance played 4D chess all along. https://decrypt.co/1136…
FTX should never been in this position. They are an exchange . Nobody should be able to obliterate them by playing around with their crypto.
I was having this exact conversation with my friends y'day. An exchange marketplace shouldn't be in this position unless they are also participating in the market directly or indirectly through funds, their own and the customers' funds.
Customers' assets (either crypto or fiat/USD) should be backed 1:1. The only reason for FTX to pause withdrawals and then assure investors that their money is safe is a sign that they are using customers' assets/funds to participate in the market.
How long before SEC/regulators wake up and regulate these shadow-banks disguised as exchanges as other exchanges?
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTX should never been in this position. They are an exchange . Nobody should be able to obliterate them by playing around with their crypto.
They are an exchange that allows future trading and margin trading which require borrowing money/assets/coins. The FTT tokens were probably put up as collateral for loans. The drop of the FTT value probably triggers calls on those loans. Thus the liquidity crisis.
You are referring to liquidity providers and market maker; they provide the liquidity (in the form of loans for margin trading, among other things), take risk in exchange for market making fee.
An exchange on the other hand is facilitating trades by matching buyers with sellers. At least that's how it works in stock markets. Even if NASDAQ were to become a market maker they would have to spin a separate entity, bring their own funds to provide liquidity. Even then I don't know if it's allowed by regulation.
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#678Could it be that it is SBF who is playing CZ by potentially involving US regulatory apparatus (CIFUS) and resulting scrutiny into Binance? In the weirdo-world-of-crypto(TM), anything is possible?
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see at all how you can say calling out literally centralized companies as "not-decentralized" is no-true-scotsman. It's just an obvious fact. > What are some large, successful defi organizations today? In my opinion, if there is an organization behind it then it is, by definition, not decentralized. Yes, even the ones that operate fully on-chain.
>literally centralized companies as "not-decentralized" So defi is only 100% decentralized everything , even if the financial tools are decentralized? That feels like an appeal to purity if ever there were one.
Ok, my previous comment is a bit unclear about what I mean. In my opinion if there is a group of people, other than the participants themselves, who can control the operation of the financial service then it is not decentralized. There can absolutely be an organization that builds the service, but participants should not be forced to adopt updates and should be free to transfer their entire balance to any other service at any time.
I realize I’m on the fringe a bit with this but I think it’s not because I have an extreme idea of what defi is, it’s that there have been so many grifters in the last 5 or so years that have used the buzzword “defi” to sell their shitty reincarnation of long-outlawed shady centralized financial schemes as something revolutionary that it’s shifted the public perception of the term. I’d even agree with you that it’s an appeal to purity.
Re: Binance to acquire FTX
#680Earlier 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.
> literally nobody has ever been confused by
um, actually...