191–200 of 211 posts
Can someone explain to me why they can't solve this by moving the money back from Alameda to FTX? Assuming Alameda is not that bad at investing money, most of the loan should still be there no?
is this nominative determinism kicking in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the thread: NOT ADVICE, OF ANY KIND, IN ANY WAY I WAS NOT VERY CAREFUL WITH MY WORDS HERE, AND DO NOT MEAN ANY OF THEM IN A TECHNICAL OR LEGAL SENSE; I MAY WELL HAVE NOT DESCRIBED THINGS RIGHT though I'm trying to be transparent. I'M NOT A GOOD DEV AND PROBABLY MISDESCRIBED SOMETHING. That’s quite the (ad-hoc) disclaimer…
Lol I don't think that would hold up in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the blockchain fail here? Blockchain and DeFi was created to solve these very problems of centralized trust and human financial fraud. Uniswap and Aave withdrawals are working just fine. Leaving your coins on a centralized exchange kills the reason for a blockchain and DeFi. It’s crypto by name only.
> centralized trust and human financial fraud. Uniswap and Aave withdrawals are working just fine. Finance always follows commerce. It’s commerce which ultimately creates an organic price floor for assets. Given that no commerce exists in the cryptospace there is no such floor. You are describing a decentralized casino, but it’s taboo to say it and hence the word “asset” is being thrown around
The original dotcom implosion was caused by all these "new Internet" companies selling advertising to each other and recognizing that as revenue, even though it was just a swap of ad space that no else wanted. When people figured that out, we had the crash of 2000. SBF maybe isn't the best quant, but he clearly knows his history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, only that Weiner was surprisingly endearing in that documentary. Despite at the time being a staunch republican, it's hard not to like the guy, and when the fall comes you're almost rooting for him. But SBF? The last interview I saw him give was I think with Levine; it was shocking because SBF was describing whence crypto derives its value. And Levine remarked that SBF was describing a Ponzi scheme. For me, tha…
Rentech is definitely bad [0], not sure about bad-ass but if evading taxes for years and ending up paying $7B is bad-ass, I guess they are. [0] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/renaissance-executi...
The article says they were advised by Deutsche Bank that they could classify certain trades in a way as to pay long-term instead of short-term capital gains taxes.
The IRS disagreed, RenTech went through an appeals process and eventually decided to settle instead of continuing the process.
There’s nothing evil about trying to legally lower your tax obligations and then being told by the IRS “Nope, you can’t do it like that.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well... not really right? Cause lots of people are rich through inheriance. And lots through the lottery. SBY appears to have gotten very rich through a simple arbitrage trade. Props to him for exploring the space and making the moves... but it doesn't take a genius to see that if you can buy something for cheap in one place and sell it in another for more that you can make a bunch of money if you do it over and over…
So a handful of people. I think that pretty much aligns with what I was saying.
See Bill Gates, Elon Musk. Etc.
See, all of the royalty of the world that still exist.
See all of the oligarchs.
It's no shocker the richest people in the world all seem to have gone to the same universities, come from the same families, etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, banking was already hundreds of years old in the 2000s. So recent bubbles and crashes in traditional markets seem like evidence that regulation, at least the kind that ends up being implemented, isn't doing much to prevent very bad outcomes.
There are two kinds of risk that are fundamentally unavoidable in being a "bank" - that is, any institution that borrows short and lends long. One is liquidity as a result of that duration mismatch: you have enough money owed to you that you've lent out, but it's not due yet. The other is loan writeoffs: you've lent money that you cannot get back, often because it's secured against an asset whose value has fallen sig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Centralized financial exchange markets are at least somewhat regulated and notably FTX.US is supposedly A-OK. Just because some stuff in crypto doesn't have regulations doesn't mean it is a free-for-all.
What does A-OK mean? No exposure at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If curing cancer for the rest of humanity now and forever required knowingly experimenting on and absolutely killing a certain number of people now, how many people could you justify with an Effective-Altruism ethical framework?
Not meaning to be inflammatory but the same scenario exists in flipped terms: how many people would you let die of cancer rather than, idk, eat the downside of running riskier experiments. There’s no privileged neutral really. Consequentialism just owns that. Now, that might be a separate question from whether society should act as if there’s a privileged neutral (ie be nonconsequentialist).
All I know is that when humanity faced the decision with respect to WWII medical experiments , the decision was made to not utilize the data, regardless of potential benefits.