181–190 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SBF publicly lied about this and called it a hack. If it was all aboveboard why would he have done that?
You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.
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.
FTX chose to file for bankruptcy in America. There is a jurisdictional dispute between the US and the Bahamian court over where the bankruptcy proceedings should take place. In my view FTX chose to incorporate in the Bahama's for a reason, and that reason wasn't the transparency and integrity of the Bahamian legal system.
They didn't incorporate in the Bahamas. They incorporated in "Antigua and Barbuda", which is a very seperate country. The only relationship FTX has with Bahamas, is the location of their headcounters, and a single wholly-owned subsidiary that probably didn't hold much in the way of funds.
Why is Antigua and Barbuda in quotes here?
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).
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?
[1] second paragraph here: https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per FT: > The “dilutive ‘minting’ of approximately $300m in FTT tokens by an unauthorised source” after FTX filed for bankruptcy. That’s along with the $372m hack. Guessing: post ftx collapse someone minted new ftt tokens. Which should be strange because only FTX should have been able to do so.
Maybe SBF & co minted more FTT in order to dump to increase fiat liquidity during the withdrawal phase, and then right after had to hand everything over to the Bahamas. This isn’t the timeline popularly floated, tho
In any case there was no buyer in size, so if they had dumped all they could the meagre proceeds would have probably been enough for like an extra half hour worth of withdrawals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not so sure. Is it correct that the Bahamian government prompty converted all the seized tokens to ETH? If the seizure was for purposes of "safekeeping", what gives the Bahamians the right to trade in other people's cryptographic tokens?