51–60 of 196 posts
I don't get how the directors, councelors, and compliance people at the company didn't raise their hand. Jail isn't a nice place to go.
It appears to have been a smoke screen, given the financial fragility of his multiple companies, he could not have been looking for more scrutiny and regulation, he was playing Poker with politicians and his competitors.
Same with his stance about charity and altruism, all PR, likely nothing in good faith.
All of this is not surprising or unusual in business, deception is part of the game, but the part I find disappointing is that almost everyone believed it until it crashed.
Why? This is not the first time.
Enron, Worldcom, Theranos, Madoff, Nikola, to name a few...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to clarify, auto-flagged when submitted as top-level posts, not when submitted as comments.
Can someone please elaborate on the relationship between archive links and spam? Why is this particular auto-flagging done?
Does anyone have evidence that would contradict this?
There are some things that are automatically [dead], though. Here's a post by Dan from earlier this year explaining some of the inner-workings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30273707
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it exactly apply? They published profiles on their site and associated themselves closely with SBF until this week, when everything unraveled.
What does that say about VC's due diligence?
He will get away clean.
No, he stole from the rich. They'll track him down and make an example of him.
https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-bid...
What is striking about the Sam Bankman-Fried case is that for a long time he was considered to be one of the few who really knew what he was doing and also an advocate for more regulation. It appears to have been a smoke screen, given the financial fragility of his multiple companies, he could not have been looking for more scrutiny and regulation, he was playing Poker with politicians and his competitors. Same with…
I would have been embarrassed to release it in the first case even if FTX were doing great. The investors were impressed that SBF was playing League of Legends during a fundraising meeting. They thought it was a good thing.
I've never been much of a believer in (stale, traditional) "honor-bound" business, where people are offended by rude behavior and personal slights and everyone has to dress up and speak properly. But my God, I'm starting to hope that it makes a comeback. Imagine losing a huge chunk of your savings to a scruffy man-child who played video games in the meeting where he was awarded the cash it took to ruin you.
I don't get how the directors, councelors, and compliance people at the company didn't raise their hand. Jail isn't a nice place to go.
They were all inexperienced is maybe the most plausible explanation. There was reported to be no board of directors and the CEO of the related proprietary trading firm Alameda was only a couple years out of school with one prior year of work experience as an entry level employee at Jane Street.
Un fucking believable.
Vc are always the first to take ownership of the success of one of their company but also the first to blame the founder when it goes wrong
"Success has a thousand parents, failure is an orphan" (Quoted from Stephen Spielberg but I don't know where he got it from)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that say about VC's due diligence?
I'll answer. It sucks. But they had a leg tingle during the SBFs presentation when he said that his vision was for FTX app to buy bananas. So they bought in. Now to be fair all facts are in so maybe it went bad after so maybe controls were more of a factor than due diligence.
- The minute details of a startup 5 year out business plan, cash-flow previsions, the impact of currency fluctuations of their profitable horizon...but ...
- Would allow him to get his girlfriend as the CEO?