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

231–240 of 251 posts

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

#231

Post by tiahura »

ekpyrotic wrote: post #4

This might just be the 'first arrow' from the SEC with much more to be added down the track, but it's interesting to see that they have gone in heavily on defrauding equity investors in the FTX business -- rather than pulling the rug on customers. Either that's because it's easier for the SEC to prove, and get it to the point of demonstrating fraud? Or the US customers and the FTX US business were relatively untouche…

It’s because neither the SEC nor the CFTC have jurisdiction over crypto.

The holding of the EPA v West Virg case (CO2 emissions) was that federal agencies can’t regulate new domains without actual legislation. The Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 unsurprisingly says nothing about crypto.

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

#232

Post by _hcuq »

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…

Are your friends buying advertising on Twitter?

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

#233

Post by eric_cc »

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'…

> people like Musk and SBF

What a ridiculous take. It’s also very telling of where you get your information. Orange Man Bad has transitioned to Elon Bad.

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

#234

Post by staticman2 »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #138
blitzar wrote: post #106

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…

I know nobody expects him to be a reliable narrator, but it's actually very easy to create a bank account for a new company, at least in my experience starting a small business.

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

#235

Post by trevyn »

itronitron wrote: post #214
hammock wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He basically admitted in the texts to the reporter he thought would be private that the EA stuff was BS. interested, source?

they may be referring to this article... https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...

Interesting, though that seems to be talking about “ethical” vs “sketchy” behavior, which is not quite the same as Effective Altruism principles.

I too am interested if anyone has a source that quotes SBF saying that his EA involvement was in any way inauthentic.

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

#236

Post by blitzar »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #138
blitzar wrote: post #106

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…

> Of course, they’ll have better evidence once they go through discovery, but this moron has been on a self-incrimination tour.

And lots of armchair lawyers have been deeply triggered by how the "media" have been proven to be corrupt and in on the scam by allowing him to speak. If there is any conspiracy here it is that the media were doing the bidding of the DA to get SBF to talk the nonsense he has been, trap him and put a massive bow on an easy prosecution.

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

#237

Post by tsimionescu »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #144
tsimionescu wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it the other way around almost 100%. The reason crypto has the absurd valuations that it does have is entirely because of the centralized exchanges that were offering an easy way for lots of actual money to come into the space (and leave it). As the larger exchanges collapse, it's also clear that many of these prices were simply invented. For example, it's pretty clear that FTX + Alameda alone invented at le…

> fact that FTX was selling coins without delivering them I think you missed the point parent was making about the fraud of accepting money for $crypto_thing and not actually buying $crypto_thing and just moving the money to the Alameda hedge fund. All of that purchasing never impacted the prices of $crypto_thing. The other thing that will be interesting is if they uncover fraud around $crypto_things that were suppos…

Even if that is how it worked, what do you think Alameda was doing with the money it got? It's not like Alameda was investing in the stock markets - it was still pouring it into crypto.

As for how the scam worked, my understanding is different - my understanding is that they both bought the token you asked for AND lent the same money to Alameda (who would then go on to buy it's own crypto) - because much of the buying was happening from other FTX accounts, which didn't actually require the dollars. So the same dollars were getting reflected both in the price of the crypto consumers asked for, and again in the prices of the crypto that Alameda was trading.

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

#238

Post by blitzar »

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…

I thought it was a town square for the world?

The most important town square for the world.

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

#239

Post by blitzar »

skybrian wrote: post #215
sifar wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> When I read what journalists were actually saying, they were quite negative about Bankman-Fried I think the issue was there was no pressing follow up to his evasive replies. e.g Sorkin's interview. He was basically allowed to get away with "I didn't knowingly do it."

Sometimes they don't follow up because the statement is obviously evasive nonsense and readers will see it. Just letting them say damning things on the record is a win. And if you don't confront them, maybe they'll say even more? It's like the military quote: "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."

10 lies on 10 different topics is of greater value than spending an hour trying to pin down the one gotcha line on 1 thing.

In effect Sorkin et al interviews has MADE the fraud case for the government. The lies are evidence there was intent to defraud.

Post reply on HN