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

681–690 of 790 posts

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#681

Post by lern_too_spel »

jrm4 wrote: post #360
lern_too_spel wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Every anarchist experiment failed? The Internet's still around, buddy.

The Internet whose addresses are handed out by IANA? That Internet? Or are you talking about Web3 scamware?

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#682

Post by eru »

refulgentis wrote: post #661
eru wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's what the 'shadow' in 'shadow bank' means: less/different regulation than a normal bank. That's not necessarily a bad thing, btw.

Where's the "bank" in this "shadow bank"? You're describing a casino with a money printer.

"Shadow banks" aren't necessarily "banks". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system

> The shadow banking system is a term for the collection of non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but outside normal banking regulations.[1] Examples of NBFIs include insurance firms, pawn shops, cashier's check issuers, check cashing locations, payday lending, currency exchanges, and microloan organizations.[2][3] The phrase "shadow banking" is regarded by some as pejorative, and the term "market-based finance" has been proposed as an alternative.[4]

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#683

Post by dibt »

chubot wrote: post #283
boeingUH60 wrote: post #54

"We’re going to look back at a generation of successful founders and VCs with the realization that all of their talent was in creating a company during the bull market." - random tweet I came across that's very relevant here.

There was an entire book about this that became famous during the 2008 financial crisis: Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb https://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Markets-Ince... It's literally about how options traders and the like can be lucky for 10 or 20 years, but they are actually idiots who destroy the economy. They think they are skilled, and others think they are skilled, but it's luck. You can al…

>It's literally about how options traders and the like can be lucky for 10 or 20 years

I don't see how doing anything successfully (in this case, gaining profit?) for 20 years can be described as "luck." Surviving/being successful that long trading isn't a fluke.

I haven't read the book, but I know that Talib talks about 'tail risk' a lot and 'risk of ruin'. Which are very different than what you describe. If my bet size is only limited to 2%, I would be happy to be "lucky" for 20 years!

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#684

Post by eru »

majormajor wrote: post #667
eru wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

B and C are perfectly fair game for a government to attempt to prevent, regulate, and prosecute in my book. I don't think anyone has an inherent right to take advantage of people's ignorance solely for their own profit even if those people "deserve what they get." We make plenty of other ways of abusing people illegal, why allow that one?

I agree that if voters want to outlaw B and C, that's their prerogative. I don't see any moral imperative for that action, though.

My formulation of 'deserve what they get' was perhaps a bit snarky.

There are good reasons for people to invest in risky ventures. Eg when you invest in a startup, you might be able to get your money back, if you ask nicely, but there's no guarantee, and there's not necessarily any liquid assets backing your funds.

I think investing in risky assets should be legal.

I also think that it should be legal for people to invest in assets that have no official classification into whether they are risky or not. Ie when the company taking your funds makes no claims (as in C), in practice the customers should assume the worst.

If you want to forbid C, alas, that leads to a lot of bureaucracy. Because you have to define what an adequate level of disclosure looks like. And then there will be lots of paperwork.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#685

Post by lern_too_spel »

int_19h wrote: post #576
lern_too_spel wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Last I checked, the Zapatistas are still around.

The FLDS cult is still around too and for about twice as long. Its mere existence doesn't make it a successful experiment.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#686

Post by acyou »

The name Sam Bankman-Fried came up quite a lot in Twitter v. Musk. I wonder if he ended up with a stake in the acquisition deal. If SBF was a sizable backer of the Twitter buyout, this more than anything could take Twitter out at the knees.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#687

Post by eru »

zeven7 wrote: post #674
eru wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No argument from me there. I was just narrowly addressing the point in stale2002's comment.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#688

Post by eru »

stripedfish7 wrote: post #663
eru wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

Except none of these 4 cases happened with FTX. SBF claimed that assets WERE backed, while it appears that they were not.

That would be case D, wouldn't it be?

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#689

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vishnugupta wrote: post #676
sytelus wrote: post #514

Earlier 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.

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…

> having this exact conversation with my friends y'day

There is a strong, vested interest in portraying FTX's collapse as a one off. Binance doing them dirty doesn't cast a pall across the industry. Fundamental problems, likely replicated systemically, does.

Re: Binance to acquire FTX

#690

Post by lern_too_spel »

rightbyte wrote: post #499
ohgodplsno wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to anarchists, it extremely often failed because of outside forces being violent towards them. Nothing in anarchy is inherently doomed to failure, and is a better demonstration of democracy than anything we have currently. (Because if there's anything an anarchist loves more than voting, it's one more voting round). Calling cryptocurrencies "anarchist" is walking on the corpse of actual anarchists and taki…

I guess people think Mad Max rather than "everything is run by tiny councils" when they think about anarchists.

Anarchy is defined as absence of government and authority, with unlimited personal freedom as a consequence. This is fine if you're living alone, but in groups, you have unbounded externalities. Tiny councils are tiny governments.
Post reply on HN