Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happened at Alameda Research

milkyeggs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 437 posts

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#211

Post by jasmer »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #3

I 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.

It's a 'puff piece' because they essentially take his words almost at face value, almost as if they are supporting his argument and don't dig more cynically into the underbelly of the issue.

There are a lot of really crazy things happening with this story they don't touch upon.

It's worse than a 'puff piece' to the point I suggest there is background manipulation going on. This is 'reputation laundering'.

There is a huge amount of money here, and a ton of very, very powerful people involved.

I suggest that within a few weeks this will be known to be truly a criminal enterprise and this NYT article will not age well.

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#212

Post by jasmer »

hoffs wrote: post #168
anonymoushn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece is well informed and aggregates a variety of sources only a few of which are not completely credible. the NYT literally refuses to use the word "fraud" or hint at criminality after Sam stole ten billion dollars from customers.

Because actual journalists have standards to abide

? Stealing $10B is fraud. So when $10B goes missing, due to what we know is 'bad behaviour' at minimum, and all the other 'smoke' around this story - we should use that word in proper context.

This is literally one of the biggest fraud cases in history.

By their own 'standards' they are compelled to use the word in proper context.

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#213

Post by vharuck »

nisegami wrote: post #112
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody will be voted out. You cannot get elected without cash, but if you do then you can't remain in office without it. You also won't influence legislation without money in your campaign or PAC wallets. If HN users want to impact policy and legislation, its not happening without donating a lot of money (or to a limited extent time) en masse to lobbyists and institutes that believe in whatever it is you believe in.…

I've wondered a lot about a hypothetical scenario where people organize and crowdfund a pool of money with the intent of disbursing it to anyone who votes for the legislation they want. For example, vote to codify Roe and you can get a slice of the pie. It's almost surely explicitly illegal though, but the absurdly wealthy are already playing this game, why can't we do it too?

The National Rifle Association pretty much does this. One could also count professional organizations that lobby and are funded by dues.

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#214

Post by SilasX »

jasode wrote: post #142
DebtDeflation wrote: post #120

> Most news accounts seem to portray the scale of the bankruptcy as relatively small. This is a key point. They lost $16B in customer deposits. LTCM lost $4.6B in investor funds. Enron lost $11B in shareholder capital. Interestingly, while Madoff is widely quoted as having lost $65B, that was almost all fabricated paper wealth, actual losses were around $18B and $14.4B of that was recovered and returned. All of these…

>LTCM lost $4.6B in investor funds. [...] All of these situations are obviously somewhat different, [...] biggest financial frauds/scandals in history. LTCM shouldn't be in that list because that wasn't fraud. That hedge fund had a flawed math model of volatility of their holdings when a cascade of events got triggered by Russia defaulting on their bonds. LTCM losses were magnified by their over leveraged positions.…

It had the potential to cascade to the rest of the market because of how they used leverage, and the only reason it didn’t was because of emergency Fed intervention.

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#215

Post by hoseja »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #120

> Most news accounts seem to portray the scale of the bankruptcy as relatively small. This is a key point. They lost $16B in customer deposits. LTCM lost $4.6B in investor funds. Enron lost $11B in shareholder capital. Interestingly, while Madoff is widely quoted as having lost $65B, that was almost all fabricated paper wealth, actual losses were around $18B and $14.4B of that was recovered and returned. All of these…

Are those 2022 dollars?

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#216

Post by anonymoushn »

blitzar wrote: post #208
anonymoushn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a maker and taker with best fees, the exchange only made 0.5bps, not 10bps. We happen to know that top rebates were pretty hard to achieve though, so most volume probably paid at least a couple more tenths of a basis point.

> According to a random source, they moved volume on the order of 500 billion. According to FTX, the entire market moved 250 billion including derivatives of which they were 13 billion https://ftx.com/volume-monitor

In the trailing 24 hours, presumably sampled at the time FTX's servers for dynamic content such as logging in and trading were shut down. also did you reply to the wrong person?

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#219

Post by naijaboiler »

jasode wrote: post #142
DebtDeflation wrote: post #120

> Most news accounts seem to portray the scale of the bankruptcy as relatively small. This is a key point. They lost $16B in customer deposits. LTCM lost $4.6B in investor funds. Enron lost $11B in shareholder capital. Interestingly, while Madoff is widely quoted as having lost $65B, that was almost all fabricated paper wealth, actual losses were around $18B and $14.4B of that was recovered and returned. All of these…

>LTCM lost $4.6B in investor funds. [...] All of these situations are obviously somewhat different, [...] biggest financial frauds/scandals in history. LTCM shouldn't be in that list because that wasn't fraud. That hedge fund had a flawed math model of volatility of their holdings when a cascade of events got triggered by Russia defaulting on their bonds. LTCM losses were magnified by their over leveraged positions.…

this is exactly what happended at FTX/Alameda. A bunch of "smart" guys who backstopped and over-extended loans to players, and their losses were magnified with their over-leveraged positions, that was backed up with assets with no values. That's exactly what happens in just about every financial scandal.

Re: What Happened at Alameda Research

#220

Post by jasmer »

SilverBirch wrote: post #172
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is very little more than just a gossip rag version of the NYT article This characterization is so far from the contents of the article I have to assume this comment is in bad faith or you're extremely biased towards the NYT. The article is 90% discussing facts/quotes from various sources and 10% speculation on what actually happened by people who are very familiar with crypto markets. The NYT piece on…

I'm not biased towards the NYT, what I'm saying is that what the NYT is doing is a different thing from this article. The NYT is an interview with SBF, interspersed with the story of what happened, and the NYT will stick to what it can actually prove. You're pissed the NYT is biased towards SBF but it's not - it's an literally an interview with SBF, you're not meant to take what SBF is saying in there uncritically. W…

The NYT is not supposed to 'stick with what they can prove'.

That's definitely not the bar they have or else they wouldn't be able to publish much.

Journalists should be a bit cynical, dig for info. The NYT has more resources than anyone, and should be able to ask around, do some actual blockchain work, interview others.

This story looks like one of the biggest frauds in history, likely because it is, it's the job of the NYT to show at least there's a lot of smoke and put puzzle pieces together (obviously with context), they are not a formal judiciary.

There are so, so many crazy parts of this story that were not addressed it reeks of something awry. For example the co-CEO. There's almost nothing about this guy, as though he does not exist. That's a huge mystery and it's only one small artifact of the story.

This article raises as much suspicion as it clears up.

Post reply on HN