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

FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 451 posts

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#421

Post by solidasparagus »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #417
nradov wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a third option: FOMO. They didn't want to look stupid later for failing to invest in case FTX turned out to be the next big thing, so they took a gamble.

This strikes me as unlikely. A VC does not look stupid for passing on an investment, even one that would've been successful. Do you think 90% of that list "looks stupid" for not having invested in Google? These big name VCs reached their status through vision, extreme due diligence, and of course luck; not from FOMOing into investments.

Based on my experience in SV startups, this is simply not true. VCs pay a ton of attention to what other VCs are doing and do in fact include what other VCs are doing as part of their decision-making process.

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#422

Post by bogomipz »

vostok wrote: post #420
bogomipz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am slightly baffled by this comment since my first impression of him was exactly "sleazy vibes". Not in the flashy Ferrari sense but because the look seemed to try so hard to be the opposite of flash - the nasty stretched out t-shirts, shorts and forever bed-head hair. It struck me as a contrived and something of a put on. Google "John Blutarsky Animal House." SBF appears to have patterned his look after Jon Belush…

I can confirm that this kind of look is not at all atypical in the quantitative prop trading world and it's not contrived.

Well if it's so common as to be a kind of uniform isn't that the very definition of contrived? How else would you explain the phenomenon then, that slobs just naturally gravitate towards prop trading?

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#423

Post by oarabbus_ »

solidasparagus wrote: post #421
oarabbus_ wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strikes me as unlikely. A VC does not look stupid for passing on an investment, even one that would've been successful. Do you think 90% of that list "looks stupid" for not having invested in Google? These big name VCs reached their status through vision, extreme due diligence, and of course luck; not from FOMOing into investments.

Based on my experience in SV startups, this is simply not true. VCs pay a ton of attention to what other VCs are doing and do in fact include what other VCs are doing as part of their decision-making process.

Well yes obviously businesses pay attention to what the competition is doing.

And there's no question it's much easier for founders to raise capital, after they've raised capital. But this is because of how our financial system works; it's much easier to loan (exchange for equity) money to someone who doesn't need it, than someone who desperately needs it. It's the same reason a billionaire can take out a loan 100x the size that you could ask for, at under 1/10th the rate.

But you're making a leap here by suggesting that VCs will make an investment and bypass due diligence simply because another VC invested. What I've seen in the startup world is confident founders are more likely to raise money, having received funding makes founders more confident thereby making investors confident, but for any significant sum of money due diligence might be expedited, but not skipped.

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#425

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #83
ingenieros wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam used the EA card and his generous donations to places like MIT's Media Lab in the same way Epstein did. This not only earned him tons of goodwill from the scientific community, but it also allowed him to rub shoulders with the likes of Tony Blair and Clinton. Who wouldn't want to invest in someone who is helping to make the world better and has all these aforementioned personalities and institutions helping to pr…

How does this relate to effective altruism as a whole? SBF does these things... therefore this kind of behavior is endemic in the effective altruism community?

[deleted]

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#426

Post by throw_m239339 »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #359
FridgeSeal wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto people complain about governments “just printing money” and then go and do shit like this. It boggles the mind.

It's almost as if crypto is mainly just scams, and people in the process of being fooled by scams.

> It's almost as if crypto is mainly just scams, and people in the process of being fooled by scams.

It is a scam, crypto is essentially people making their own money backed by nothing but hype. The entire industry will collapse way before the regular financial system ever does. Crypto has no fundamentals, none, zip, if not the FIAT people are willing to lose in an attempt to get rich quickly.

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#427

Post by fxtentacle »

nemo44x wrote: post #166
moneycantbuy wrote: post #28

how did ftx successfully raise so much vc money recently? do these top vc firms do no due diligence?

> how did ftx successfully raise so much vc money recently? Maybe they got to join the FTX polycule if they invested enough. Who wouldn't want to get in on that.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply here. But if it did, I'd find that impressive, too. Most topmodels never make it to 10 billion USD.

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#428

Post by nwiswell »

gruez wrote: post #407
nwiswell wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we assume that everyone who's in movements is in it for cynical reasons? This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. Perhaps we should view facially "altruistic" movements much more skeptically. Indeed in hindsight it seems like membership is much more advantageous for virtue signaling than for being more "effective" with your altruism (is it really so hard to figure out who will do the most good with your money?)

>This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. And you refusing to quote the rest of my comment (which contains proposals that aren't "all-or-nothing") is... some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up. >Perhaps we should view facially "altruistic" movements much more skeptically. And how would being more skeptical have helped in this case? The New Yorker article described Bankman-Fried as being involved with EA since his…

> some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up.

Is it? I didn't object to the rest of your comment but I don't see how it was relevant either.

> He was donating half his salary while working at Jane Street.

So do we actually know that he was doing that, or is that just another example of everyone taking him at his word?

> Everything you said could be applied to all charitable giving.

Most people don't congregate to discuss how charitable they are, so not really.

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#429

Post by anonymoushn »

jandrese wrote: post #410
anonymoushn wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These frauds can continue so long as they can continue to grow or at least maintain a steady state. Since they promise higher returns than can be achieved through honest means the liabilities grow faster than assets over time, but so long as nobody tries to realize their gains it's fine. Honestly this sort of comment makes me want to stop reading hacker news comments sections altogether. Could you explain what retu…

It didn't matter if those holdings weren't making returns, because they were all connected to a Ponzi scheme that was siphoning off the money from the rest of the company. https://www.theblock.co/post/186187/alameda-promised-high-re... 15% returns, guaranteed, no risk.

It didn't matter that my comment was completely wrong and irrelevant because some other facts I omitted from my comment!

Re: FTX used corporate funds to purchase employee homes, new filing shows

#430

Post by jalapenos »

kevinventullo wrote: post #245
MichaelCollins wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Draper still supports Elizabeth Holmes: https://fortune.com/2022/01/05/venture-capital-tim-draper-el... I don't know how. Maybe he's just fucking stupid, or too prideful to admit he was wrong.

It may be less about pride and and more about reputation management. It’s the same reason Trump never admits he’s wrong; it’s simply not strategically beneficial to do so.

I'd say Trump is never wrong because he's a fairly overt narcissist, and never being wrong goes with that territory.

That may also be why the above figures are like that too.

Post reply on HN