171–180 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume it's to get their bribe money before anyone else had a chance.
Propably not, the Bahamas have a financial safe haven reputation to preserve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Propably not, the Bahamas have a financial safe haven reputation to preserve.
SBF publicly lied about this and called it a hack. If it was all aboveboard why would he have done that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But does FTX have the right to agree to this? It’s like me agreeing with a stranger to sell your house and split the proceeds between us. FTX wasn’t entitled to the customers money and neither had the Bahamian authorities.
> But does FTX have the right to agree to this? That makes no sense. They are incorporated under Bahamianan law, so that law takes precedence over any contractual agreement. I.e., FTX cannot enter into a contract that declares implicitly or explicitly that they won't follow said law.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how ? Was the Bahamas' SEC holding its own copies of FTX's keys? I thought the entire point of these schemes was that this kind of seizure-by-force wasn't possible (absent exploits or insiders).
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/538/ We often ignore the physical realities when thinking through security scenarios
I've lost count how many times I've seen self-professed crypto fundamentalists say they'd never, ever give out their keys during duress - that they'd rather die than hand over anything. (Usually in the context of some person getting kidnapped and giving their keys to their captors, has happened quite a few times around the world)
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how ? Was the Bahamas' SEC holding its own copies of FTX's keys? I thought the entire point of these schemes was that this kind of seizure-by-force wasn't possible (absent exploits or insiders).
It says right in the article SBF did it himself because the government asked him to after declaring bankruptcy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another interesting angle to this is that the funds were collected in various different currencies, but all of them were converted into ETH. And they weren't converted carefully to make sure they got the full value, no attempt at OTC deals or anything; they were converted in a rush and dumped on the open market. This resulted in pretty clear loss of funds. It seems like a strange way for a government to operate. That…
I agree with your last paragraph, but the prior makes total sense. The government aren't crypto experts nor were they trying to min-max their incoming half a billion. They wanted it quick and easy.
All in all, nothing to see here. And in case the confiscated assets cannot be confiscated by the Bahamas a court will ultimately return them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The news article doesn't state the legal authority, but the statement from Securities Commission of the Bahamas of course does. "Under the Digital Assets and Registered Exchanges Act, 2020 (DARE Act), the Commission has the authority..." The government has the right to do this because FTX agreed to this .
But does FTX have the right to agree to this? It’s like me agreeing with a stranger to sell your house and split the proceeds between us. FTX wasn’t entitled to the customers money and neither had the Bahamian authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bahamas has a total population of a smallish city and surely a national budget to match. Grabbing 500M anonymously (while letting everyone run around for days thinking it was a hacker) doesn't make much sense either. Did they put their entire country's budget on the exchange or something?
When exchanges registered in the Bahamas are in danger of losing customers money, Bahamian government has authority and duty to seize assets to protect customers. Bahamian government is taking custody, it's not their money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/538/ We often ignore the physical realities when thinking through security scenarios
Pretty accurate. I've lost count how many times I've seen self-professed crypto fundamentalists say they'd never, ever give out their keys during duress - that they'd rather die than hand over anything. (Usually in the context of some person getting kidnapped and giving their keys to their captors, has happened quite a few times around the world)
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how ? Was the Bahamas' SEC holding its own copies of FTX's keys? I thought the entire point of these schemes was that this kind of seizure-by-force wasn't possible (absent exploits or insiders).
Not your keys, not your crypto.