Archive: https://archive.ph/kkpuz
Nice the site is down now for some reason
What Happened at Alameda Research
11–20 of 437 posts
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#12I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
> they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources
It goes both ways. It seems like they didn't do much verification of Sam's claims.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#13I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
> He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
Ok? Regardless, this piece does a significantly better job than the NY Times and the "serious journalistic publication".
The times articles actually misleads readers into thinking that the FTX downfall was moreso from bad timing & outside attacks then from SBF fraudulently stealing user funds.
> immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources
The Twitter accounts directly quoted have many followers and a long history of tweets that are easily searchable.
If you're referring to the Autism Capital tweet, that's a tweet of a photograph which you can look at yourself. It's clearly a stimulant that says EMSAM on it.
Name the specific tweets in the piece that you find incredulous rather than an ad hominem.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#14Two words: Ponzi Scheme.
For reference:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/13/sam-bankman-frieds-alameda-q...
> In making some of these leveraged trades, the quant fund was using a cryptocurrency created by the exchange called FTT as collateral. In a lending agreement, collateral is typically the borrower’s pledge to secure repayment. It’s often dollars, or something else of value — like real estate. In this case, a source said Alameda was borrowing from FTX, and using the exchange’s in-house cryptocurrency, FTT token, to back those loans. The price of the FTT token nosedived 75% in a day, making the collateral insufficient to cover the trade.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#15I find it curious Musk was able to snif out SBF as a bullshit artist in his 30 min. Meeting with him, whereas countless polititions and regulators aparently did not have a clue despite years of meetings and other contacts.
The politicians and regulators wanted SBF's money. Musk didn't need it.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#16Two words: Ponzi Scheme.
And worse: pretty much everyone was aware of it, but thought that because they were aware of it and everyone else is a schmuck, they could benefit from it. Some did, but only if they liquidated their holdings last year. NFTs this year was a microcosm of exactly that. Loads of people jumped on the bandwagon, buying up NFTs as they were released, but the whole thing collapsed again when it turned out the resale market…
NFTs were like all cryptos. _Everyone_ knew they were bullshit but expected there would be one more greedy idiot to pass the bag to.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#17I find it curious Musk was able to snif out SBF as a bullshit artist in his 30 min. Meeting with him, whereas countless polititions and regulators aparently did not have a clue despite years of meetings and other contacts.
What a bunch of BS. It's obviously easy to say that in hindsight. There are a million reasons for why he did not take the investment, but in none of the published conversation was anything about him thinking SBF is lying. In fact, knowing Elon, if he had really said that at some point before FTX collapsed, he sure would have published it by now to prove how smart he is.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#18I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
Interesting, this displays a classic problem with the NYT: they end up searching for their lost keys under the streetlamp since that's where the light is. If they report on an organization that has $1 million in verified assets, but the organization is suspected to have $999 million in assets and $2 billion in liabilities, they will report the organization as solvent because they have verification standards for sources and are a serious journalistic publication. Therefore, they can only publish about the $1 million in verified assets. The organization could therefore be widely suspected to be insolvent, but reported by the NYT as solvent.
In fact, that's what happened this time.
Perhaps this is why the NYT's Judith Miller has such prominent roles in journalism.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#19I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
If you had been following this whole saga at all you would know that Twitter anons have been a way better source of information than anyone else.
The on-chain anaylsis, digging and commentary done by people on Twitter has been insanely insightful.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#20I find it curious Musk was able to snif out SBF as a bullshit artist in his 30 min. Meeting with him, whereas countless polititions and regulators aparently did not have a clue despite years of meetings and other contacts.
Takes one to know one