Well the Madoff trustee's were able to see who received payouts from Madoff due to KYC rules. This allowed the trustee to go to people, most of whom were completely innocent, to ask the to give back some of the money they redeemed from Madoff. FTX on the other hand has very few KYC docs so the trustees are left with wallet addresses. Not sure how you contact a wallet address to ask for money back.
> FTX on the other hand has very few KYC docs so the trustees are left with wallet addresses. FTX (US? International? Both?) required KYC during sign-up. Or what do you mean?
During my first week in my first programming job I remember overhearing a senior engineer saying “don’t worry, there’s not another leap year for 2 years”. I was still working there on February 29, he wasn’t. It was a stressful day. My condolences go out to the engineers who will be working on January 1st 100000.
Surely by then we'll have had a powerful enough pope to rename the months at least once.
You can rename the months any time you feel like. The problem is getting other people to go along with your renaming.
Once upon a time, enough people cared what the Pope had to say, he could actually succeed in changing the calendar for everybody. But, it would be a rather interesting future history for the Catholic Church to regain power to the point that became true once again.
There was. They marked their entire investments to zero. A total loss.
Are people going to trust them with their money to let them raise future funds? If so: why?
People will still trust them with their money because social accountability mechanisms are not that great, PR is a thing and people are even more prone to FOMO and skipping due diligence than even VC investors have been here.
And quite probably are near the top of the clawback list if it turns out that any of the funds ended up with them. They have very good reasons to be distressed, their sons future behind bars is only one of the things they need to be worried about. Their whole world is crashing down around them, besides of course becoming persona non-grata to pretty much all of their friends and quite possibly family in case others go…
Oh, it's worse than that. There will at least be civil suits. Possibly criminal prosecution.[1] NYT: "Mr. Bankman was deeply involved in FTX. In its early days, he helped the company recruit its first lawyers. Last year, he joined FTX staff in meetings on Capitol Hill and advised his son as Mr. Bankman-Fried prepared to testify to the House Financial Services Committee, a person familiar with the matter said. FTX emp…
From that quote it isn't clear precisely how Mr. Bankman was involved with his son's firm, how much he was an insider, particularly in the later days as the fraud presumably intensified. It's plausible that SBF, digging himself deeper in fraud while getting high on his own supply, insulated his law professor father from the seedier proceedings at his darling company. Probably will take the courts to determine the apple's proximity to the tree.
Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.
> I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this. Same for a16z, Softbank and all the others that jumped on the crypto bandwagon without doing their jobs as board members and during the run-up to the deal and after investing. Ironically, the VCs will position themselves as the victims.
Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.
The Sequoia profile of SPF is quite the read: https://archive.ph/qFJJN
The podcast Behind the Bastards did an episode on SBF, it referenced this article! And made fun if it extensively
> Other folks got money out of Madoff during his scam years, and the trustee says “I’m taking that money back to pay back others.” What’s the limit on that? Dollars or time? I would be beyond furious if I was expected to help make someone else whole.
It's infuriating for sure, but unfortunately it's the reality. If you gained from a Ponzi scheme that means you literally were given other peoples' money (directly). I fully empathize with the absolutely epic degree it must SUCK to get a call and be told "yeah that 10% you've been earning for the past 20 years was actually someone else's money, you need to give it back."
Assuming you cashed out, wouldn't it be something like "that 10% you earned 10 years ago" because if you never cashed out then you're not liable.
My reply would be along the lines of:
"Sorry lost it all in MtGox/FTX/Crypto/Vegas/Horses"
Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.
The reckoning perhaps is that as rates rise, investors will not need to resort to investing in "tech" companies.
The over-availablility of cheap capital was one factor leading to the rise of VC and BS "tech" companies, but the other factor was that rates were so ridiculously low for so long investors were essentially forced to invest in this speculative nonsense.
Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.
There was. They marked their entire investments to zero. A total loss.
What about the funds that FTX invested back into Sequoia?
I think that it is a thing for a shockingly large percent of parents. Historically children were the retirement plan (in addition to labor for the family). That type of thinking is fairly common.
But aren't his parents pretty successful lawyers who are pretty well of on their own? There are usual family pathologies and unusual family pathologies, and this looks like the latter.
I’ll rephrase. There are too many parents who don’t care about their kids or what happens to them. This tendency goes up a bit, I think, if the kids are not necessary for retirement or care when old age sets in.