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

A software change allowed FTX to use client money

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 402 posts

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#261

Post by dodyg »

jiggawatts wrote: post #98
andrewstuart wrote: post #75

The real problem behind all these crypto companies is the people who make the money have no concept of what "integrity" is. They aren't coming from a baseline assumption that their job is to protect and interests and the money of their clients. Traditional banks, for the most part, have DNA built around protecting customer interests and customer money. Crypto companies have none of that attitude - behind every one of…

> The real problem behind all these crypto companies is the people who make the money have no concept of what "integrity" is. You don't need integrity while "the line goes up". Integrity is only for when it goes down. Until recently, the line has been consistently going up. SBF was banking on it going up forever. If it had gone up forever, he would not have been caught! While the line goes up, integrity just eats int…

> the people who make the money have no concept of what "integrity" is.

It's outrageous that there is no honour amongst scammers.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#262

Post by xdavidliu »

ummonk wrote: post #253
r_hoods_ghost wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directors have specific, well defined legal duties to their company which includes a duty of fiduciary responsibility. That is why they're directors rather than "head of product" or "VP of marketing" or whatever other meaningless title people bestow on themselves. Saying "my boss told me to do it so it is not my fault" is nonsense because you have no boss beyond your shareholders.

Holding the title "director of X" doesn't mean you're necessarily on the board of directors.

in fact, the two are probably anti-correlated

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#263

Post by School-Cotton »

jacquesm wrote: post #157
alar44 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I feel like intent would be really hard to prove. "Hey, due to the way our accounting works I need you to subtract X from our dashboard." "Ok boss." Are programmers expected to know finance law? If I build a program for a dairy farmer am I supposed to know the laws of the interstate dairy trade? I can't believe that would be the case.

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse if you are found to be breaking the law. So if you think what you are doing is possibly in violation of the law you better bone up or ask a lawyer for a statement on letterhead that what you are doing is ok.

> Ignorance of the law is never an excuse if you are found to be breaking the law.

That’s true, but ignorance of the facts often can be. “I didn’t know I was doing X” rather than “I didn’t know X was illegal”.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#264

Post by School-Cotton »

creato wrote: post #151
notch656a wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should apply to anyone. IMO engineers aren't special. As a human you should try not to fuck over other people.

I assume this is a reference to other engineering disciplines, where an engineer signing off on something has real meaning.

People gatekeeping the word “engineer” is a bit annoying, since the word “engineer” dates to at least 1380 and originally just means someone who works on engines. “Engineer” as a legally super special class of job is a thing that came much later and only ever applied to certain jurisdictions anyway.

“Software engineer” is just a synonym for “programmer”, in the actually existing practice of the English language.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#265

Post by ithinkso »

t0suj4 wrote: post #257
TheNorthman wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the whole Topf & Söhne debacle doesn't need repeating? Engineers are of course partly responsible for the things they implement.

Why should be someone responsible for how the product of their labor is being used?

That's why be don't deserve the title of engineer in software and we should stick with coder or programmer.

'Hi mate. We just bought this rebar from Alibaba, saved as a ton of money. Could you sign here real quick? We need to finish that bridge!'

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#266

Post by jackstraw14 »

rxhernandez wrote: post #220
RF_Savage wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engineer would have a hard time claiming ignorance with multiple widely reported public statements about how Alameda had no special priviledges.

Should an engineer be tracking what their company is telling media outlets? No one else is tasked with looking at my code except other engineers; why should engineers spend their precious time making sure that other business units are performing their duties ethically?

> Should an engineer be tracking what their company is telling media outlets?

Are you serious? Make sure your ass is covered if you're doing illegal shit for your company, because they're never looking out for you over the org.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#267

Post by School-Cotton »

uwuemu wrote: post #252
martingoodson wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stay civil. This is not an argument against programmers, like other professionals, learning the aspects of the law which are relevant to their job. Why should programming be the one profession where this is not required?

Because to be criminally liable for something requires both a) actually doing something that is against the law and b) doing so with intent (i.e. you knew what you're doing is against the law and you did it anyway... because you thought you will not get caught or just didn't care). It is then up to the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you actually intended to break the law. (With the exception of s…

Sorry but this is completely wrong. “Mens rea” means knowing you were doing a particular thing. It doesn’t mean knowing that it was illegal.

E.g. if I take your wallet off of a table because I thought it was mine, I’m probably not guilty of theft. If I took it because I didn’t know theft was illegal, I probably still am.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#268

Post by nailer »

TheNorthman wrote: post #243
rxhernandez wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should an engineer be tracking what their company is telling media outlets? No one else is tasked with looking at my code except other engineers; why should engineers spend their precious time making sure that other business units are performing their duties ethically?

Probably because the whole Topf & Söhne debacle doesn't need repeating? Engineers are of course partly responsible for the things they implement.

For those wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topf_and_Sons

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#269

Post by laserlight »

t0suj4 wrote: post #257
TheNorthman wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the whole Topf & Söhne debacle doesn't need repeating? Engineers are of course partly responsible for the things they implement.

Why should be someone responsible for how the product of their labor is being used?

Why not? Why do we keep Apple responsible for Foxconn's labor practices? Isn't Foxconn an independent company after all? The reason is because we don't want evil to spread by externalizing the responsibility to third parties.

Re: A software change allowed FTX to use client money

#270

Post by quickthrower2 »

meindnoch wrote: post #42
siegecraft wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would they know it's explicitly criminal though? i doubt most devs have enough understanding of their business domain, much less the regulatory frameworks to be able to confidently refuse to implement something because it's illegal.

ignorantia juris non excusat

3 lawyers for each coder then?
Post reply on HN