191–200 of 251 posts
It would be like giving a microphone to a nabbed thief who says 'I can understand why someone might construe breaking into a safe as a reason for concern. That's a reasonable criticism'.
Oh, you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won’t, just like even in this thread you see the perennial “this is good, actually.” At rock bottom the crypto world is held up by unadulterated greed and it shows on both ends: I am willing to make too-good-to-be-true “investments” because greed; when that unfolds the obvious way it was going to then it’s someone else’s fault and they’re not moving fast enough — also greed. In short: “Why aren’t I rich yet, I’ll…
> It won’t, just like even in this thread you see the perennial “this is good, actually.” That's not quite what the grandparent poster was talking about. One strain of thought on FTX/SBF has been conspiratorial. Allegedly, SBF was "a big Democratic donor" with connections in high places, so he would evade any serious US-based law enforcement action. This view is likely related to FTX's (previous) attempts to present…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you considered that people who have other opinions exist and theirs is as valid as yours? I think parent is saying the opposite. "Just to give some perspective that I don’t think HN really gets" Parent has seen several comments assuming everyone's leaving Twitter and Musk is destroying the platform and himself and will never recover. I, likewise, reading Reddit get the same feeling that some pockets think ever…
Everyone assumed my comment about hubris referred to how he's running Twitter now. I think what he's doing is dumb, but that's not my point. His biggest problem is he way overpaid, and saddled the company with a ton of debt. My hubris comment was referring to him talking big and signing a deal he never intended to follow through on. He could run Twitter perfectly and still be forced into bankruptcy by the end of '23.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 31. From the inception of FTX, Bankman-Fried diverted FTX customer funds to Alameda, and he continued to do so until FTX’s collapse in November 2022 I assume they have the evidence, and while what SBF was saying (we never touched customer funds etc.) was never particularly credible - it blows up the narative that he has maintained to date. Indeed much of the case is built on his public statements (and testimony) be…
They have SBF’s own idiot mouth as evidence when he claimed, multiple times, that Alameda was created first, got its bank account, and FTX used that Alameda bank account when FTX was created. He alludes to it here: https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo at 11:58 or so, where he mentions “before FTX had its own bank account.” I know there’s a longer explanation, but that’s the best citation I can come up with off the top of my…
It stretches credulity very far to believe someone running a financial institution did not know this.
I hope that swiftness of these charges will slightly diminish all these voices that keep repeating everywhere that 'the man' is on it with him, that the media defend him etc.
Unlikely. That sound you hear is the goalposts being moved yet again
I noticed the behavior living in oil country concerning gas prices. When gas prices go up, that's bad because it makes everything costs more. When gas prices go down, that's bad because it makes the oil and gas industry fire everyone and then no one has jobs.
Apparently there's a Platonic ideal price for gas, just no one can tell me what that is.
Also with various shootings. Right after, it's too soon to talk about current gun laws. Too long after, it's pointless to talk about because there hasn't been an incident in so long. We missed the window yet again. But no one will tell us when that window opens.
Same thing here, apparently there's a perfect amount of time for charges. The Goldilocks zone, the golden hour, when the planets align and you can charge criminals for crimes and you'll magically have enough evidence and not too much time has passed. But try to pin down anyone on a concrete time frame and you'll get almost as much deflection as SBF tried to give the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have SBF’s own idiot mouth as evidence when he claimed, multiple times, that Alameda was created first, got its bank account, and FTX used that Alameda bank account when FTX was created. He alludes to it here: https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo at 11:58 or so, where he mentions “before FTX had its own bank account.” I know there’s a longer explanation, but that’s the best citation I can come up with off the top of my…
I'm just an engineer, but even I know that if you create an entity and expect to perform financial transactions as that entity, you need a bank account. Corporations, LLCs, HOAs, clubs, lemonade stands. Well, perhaps not lemonade stands... If you don't have the bank account open yet, then don't initiate any transactions. It stretches credulity very far to believe someone running a financial institution did not know t…
1) SBF cared about traditional rules of banking/finance
2) SBF cares about doing things the 'right way'
He may have been doing it purposefully wrong, or he may have just wanted to do it as fast as possible ("Move Fast and Break Things") and so he skipped the requesite steps to get to what he wanted done, faster.
Not a justification for his actions, but simply why he may have done it
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 various players in crypto space have written a ton of EULA mumbo-jumbo explaining that the coins are not securities (as they want the freedom to pump&dump/front run orders/etc). If they admitted the cryptos are securities, all sorts of pesky regulations would apply
The SEC's complaint. It's a brutal read if you're Sam: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-2...
Just a few days ago, he was hoping to "make people's money back". [1] It's a bit sad, as he appears delusional. A less forgiving viewpoint would be that his background cultivated his sense of being untouchable; that it was just a case of having another go. But not as sad as the people who lost money they couldn't afford to lose. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63911363
Yeah, he thinks he'll look better as delusional than criminally greedy and apparently he's right
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'…
If he wasn't the type to go on tour and shout, then he wouldn't have attracted enough investors in the first place to be rich. It takes a specific personality to market things so others will buy, and that personality doesn't like to shut up and so won't. Some things sell themselves, but most great ideas sit around unknown by people who need them just because they don't know about it. I'd love to buy a better mousetra…