I 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 Happened at Alameda Research
41–50 of 437 posts
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Twitter might provide more information than the NYT, but there's a reason NYT doesn't publish it - because the NYT wants to be reliable. They want their claims to actually stand up to scrutiny and be an accurate portrayal of the events we know happened. Whereas big chunks of this article are just pure speculation. The whole section about how Alameda might have had a rogue algo are just made up out of whole cloth. Is…
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#43> While this might have been considered highly competitive in 2019-era crypto markets, it is a far cry from the microsecond-level precision of market making in traditional finance.
The author is confusing tick-to-trade with prediction horizon. The "microseconds" market makers talk about is how long it takes to react to incoming market data and send out a trade message. The 2 seconds SBF is talking about is how far ahead in the future you want to predict price changes over.
Doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in the rest of the analysis if this is the level of domain knowledge the author has.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#44I 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.
Appeals to authority are weak compared to facts laid bare. The fact is that the NYT author has made clear biases against other exchanges and overly forgiving of a single exchange guilty of customer theft, which is papered over in his article. This is unusual compared to all other reporting of FTX amongst mainstream jouranlists. There were no articles attempting to humanize Bernie Madoff, this article hides the fact that SBF ran a ponzi scheme, imagine the same with Madoff, it would be shocking. This is shocking.
Imagine having the Bernie Madoff subheading, "he had expanded too fast and failed to see warning signs". This is the scale of ludicrousness here. The facts aren't subjective or unclear in any way, FTX didn't have customer deposits, which they claimed to have up even until the very end. When it comes to journalism, this is an unforgivable failure.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not planning to, but this still really saddens me. You can have grievances about what happened here (and I'm sure many do), but the overtly sexual attacks on Caroline Ellison should disgust us all. This isn't a defence of anyone's actions. If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted. If no crime has been committed, maybe regulation should be introduced - or maybe people should learn a va…
What the fuck is a "sexual attack"
Probably easier to ask outright, why shouldn't I do a Google Images search for Caroline Ellison?
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#46> In a podcast from 2019, SBF brags about making predictions on the timescale of 1-2 seconds > While this might have been considered highly competitive in 2019-era crypto markets, it is a far cry from the microsecond-level precision of market making in traditional finance. The author is confusing tick-to-trade with prediction horizon. The "microseconds" market makers talk about is how long it takes to react to incomi…
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#47Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#48I 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
#49 Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange ... He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details.
Did FTX use their pool of customer deposits to extend leverage to margin traders?