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

SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 251 posts

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#71

Post by katbyte »

thepasswordis wrote: post #57
matwood wrote: post #8

I'll just quote part of what I said a month ago :) > And given what's leaked from their balance sheet, I don't see how people avoid jail time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33608691 I'll also add that SBF going on tour was the stupidest thing he could have done. Every time he spoke, he was giving the government more evidence. Hubris has often been the downfall of the rich and powerful throughout history. What'…

>like Musk and SBF I‘m sorry, but what ? Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets: most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. If you aren’t aware, whatever the team did there a few days ago really has appeared to cut bots down to almost 0. SBF is an [alleged] criminal who has [allegedly] defrauded people of billions of dollars, and will likely be spending a substantial amount of tim…

> most of my friends have increased their twitter usage.

it doesn't matter if people use the platform more if they don't pay for the blue check or if advertisers are not interested in paying for ads.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#72

Post by 323 »

pavlov wrote: post #6

It's sort of curious that this SEC action is to protect the venture capital investors like Sequoia who invested in FTX shares directly. If I were a retail investor who lost my savings in FTX, I might be feeling upset that the government is rushing to action in defense of billion-dollar funds whose own due diligence failed massively, while seemingly nothing is being done to help those who invested in crypto based on F…

> If I were a retail investor who lost my savings in FTX, I might be feeling upset that the government is rushing to action in defense

The customers will be paid before investors with whatever money is there. This is well established by previous case precedents, including in places like unregulated poker betting sites.

Anybody can have a claim, including the SEC, but the courts decide allocation order.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#73

Post by [deleted] »

thepasswordis wrote: post #57
matwood wrote: post #8

I'll just quote part of what I said a month ago :) > And given what's leaked from their balance sheet, I don't see how people avoid jail time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33608691 I'll also add that SBF going on tour was the stupidest thing he could have done. Every time he spoke, he was giving the government more evidence. Hubris has often been the downfall of the rich and powerful throughout history. What'…

>like Musk and SBF I‘m sorry, but what ? Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets: most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. If you aren’t aware, whatever the team did there a few days ago really has appeared to cut bots down to almost 0. SBF is an [alleged] criminal who has [allegedly] defrauded people of billions of dollars, and will likely be spending a substantial amount of tim…

[deleted]

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#74

Post by blululu »

SilverBirch wrote: post #65
thepasswordis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>like Musk and SBF I‘m sorry, but what ? Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets: most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. If you aren’t aware, whatever the team did there a few days ago really has appeared to cut bots down to almost 0. SBF is an [alleged] criminal who has [allegedly] defrauded people of billions of dollars, and will likely be spending a substantial amount of tim…

Just for reference what Musk did is just blocked half the mobile carriers in emerging markets, kneecapping their ability to grow Twitter in those countries whilst only temporarily tamping down on bots. The bots will be back, the users won't.

Honest question: are low income users viable for an ad supported platform? As it is I think only North American online ads actually make decent money, though perhaps European and Asian ad markets also deliver value close to break even. It is all an investment in the future. The last 15 years have had a belief that more users means more money but this might be thinking that all users are the same when some are much more valuable than others.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#75

Post by HN_is_for_gemes »

katbyte wrote: post #71
thepasswordis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>like Musk and SBF I‘m sorry, but what ? Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets: most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. If you aren’t aware, whatever the team did there a few days ago really has appeared to cut bots down to almost 0. SBF is an [alleged] criminal who has [allegedly] defrauded people of billions of dollars, and will likely be spending a substantial amount of tim…

> most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. it doesn't matter if people use the platform more if they don't pay for the blue check or if advertisers are not interested in paying for ads.

Yes, because marketers don't care about audience size and they have a long history of being strictly moral people.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#76

Post by hnmullany »

pavlov wrote: post #6

It's sort of curious that this SEC action is to protect the venture capital investors like Sequoia who invested in FTX shares directly. If I were a retail investor who lost my savings in FTX, I might be feeling upset that the government is rushing to action in defense of billion-dollar funds whose own due diligence failed massively, while seemingly nothing is being done to help those who invested in crypto based on F…

The "S" in SEC stands for "Securities" -> they are chartered to protect investors. There are other bodies who are chartered to protect consumers.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#77

Post by [deleted] »

duxup wrote: post #49
pavlov wrote: post #6

It's sort of curious that this SEC action is to protect the venture capital investors like Sequoia who invested in FTX shares directly. If I were a retail investor who lost my savings in FTX, I might be feeling upset that the government is rushing to action in defense of billion-dollar funds whose own due diligence failed massively, while seemingly nothing is being done to help those who invested in crypto based on F…

It should be noted Samuel is a really rich guy too, and he is being charged.

[deleted]

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#78

Post by SilverBirch »

blululu wrote: post #74
SilverBirch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for reference what Musk did is just blocked half the mobile carriers in emerging markets, kneecapping their ability to grow Twitter in those countries whilst only temporarily tamping down on bots. The bots will be back, the users won't.

Honest question: are low income users viable for an ad supported platform? As it is I think only North American online ads actually make decent money, though perhaps European and Asian ad markets also deliver value close to break even. It is all an investment in the future. The last 15 years have had a belief that more users means more money but this might be thinking that all users are the same when some are much mo…

Meta makes revenues of about $15Bn in US & Canada, $8Bn in the EU and $10Boutside of EU & US/Canada each year. So it's clearly not nothing, and it's not like Twitter can afford to be picky about where it makes money.

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#79

Post by linuxftw »

HN_is_for_gemes wrote: post #75
katbyte wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of my friends have increased their twitter usage. it doesn't matter if people use the platform more if they don't pay for the blue check or if advertisers are not interested in paying for ads.

Yes, because marketers don't care about audience size and they have a long history of being strictly moral people.

I qualify as a marketer. I don't want my ads seen by people not local to my market. Audience size alone isn't useful, it's about target audience, of which, almost none of that would have been blocked recently. (I don't use or market on twitter).

Re: SEC Charges Samuel Bankman-Fried with Defrauding Investors in FTX [pdf]

#80

Post by zeroonetwothree »

phphphphp wrote: post #66
boplicity wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, it seems to me that VCs should be liable for money FTX owes its customers. These are professional investors who didn't insist on very basic things, such as proper financial sheets from a finance company. Frankly, that's gross negligence. Professional investors should have legal responsibility to do at least some due diligence. In addition, they're becoming owners of a company. As owners, why shouldn't they b…

Setting aside the arguments to be made for/against the idea, and focusing on the implementation instead: most investments are handled through some sort of limited liability vehicle and so even if the “investor” was held responsible it would not necessarily impact the human(s) that stood to gain.

I suppose we need some criminal law in that case.
Post reply on HN