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

Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 338 posts

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#21

Post by tiahura »

tptacek wrote: post #18
moab wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

110 years! I wonder how many she'll get out of that for being the first out of the woodwork.

The "maximum" sentence here isn't even a theoretical maximum; it's just what happens if you take the statutory limit on what could be sentenced in the worst possible combination of circumstances , and it assumes that charges don't group or get served concurrently. It's annoying that they cite this number at all, because it simply has no bearing as to how things get sentenced in reality.

Isn’t the size of the fraud one of the major factors in the guidelines? If so, it may not be 110 years, but it’s got to be a big number?

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#22

Post by neilv »

> Both were involved in effective altruism — a community focused on using data to maximize the long-term impact of charitable donations.

> She got into crypto, she explained on another episode, because she was hoping to make lots of money to give away as part of her commitment to effective altruism.

Should the term be capitalized, as Effective Altruism?

It seems to be a new, branded definition, and not in common usage like the generic terms effective and altruism.

It's also bringing some bad associations to good old-fashioned altruism.

Also, in the space of questionable philosophy appealing to insulated rich kids, Objectivism is already capitalized.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#24

Post by mikeyouse »

tiahura wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "maximum" sentence here isn't even a theoretical maximum; it's just what happens if you take the statutory limit on what could be sentenced in the worst possible combination of circumstances , and it assumes that charges don't group or get served concurrently. It's annoying that they cite this number at all, because it simply has no bearing as to how things get sentenced in reality.

Isn’t the size of the fraud one of the major factors in the guidelines? If so, it may not be 110 years, but it’s got to be a big number?

The number does indeed get larger with bigger losses - but most of the charges also have statutory maximums (e.g. 20yrs for wire fraud) and they'll almost certainly be served concurrently. With this level of fraud a sentence approaching 10 years might be in play, but we'll have to see what the prosecutors say.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#25

Post by indigodaddy »

jakear wrote: post #13
braingenious wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think “This is a hilarious turn of events” could be a useful start of a thoughtful conversation about the events surrounding the FTX collapse. I do not think reiterating one’s interpretation of rules that everyone already knows is particularly useful or on topic.

This is pretty much the exact outcome one would expect, no? The only question I have is if/when Sam Trabucco gets charged… he’s managed to stay in the shadows much better than his colleagues.

I was thinking the same thing. This is entirely normal.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#28

Post by EGreg »

neilv wrote: post #22

> Both were involved in effective altruism — a community focused on using data to maximize the long-term impact of charitable donations. > She got into crypto, she explained on another episode, because she was hoping to make lots of money to give away as part of her commitment to effective altruism. Should the term be capitalized, as Effective Altruism ? It seems to be a new, branded definition, and not in common usa…

Basically, it seems that earn to give isnt the best way. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos got that way by building a very successful organization that helps a lot of consumers (being able to do so thanks yo wage slavery until automation started kicking in).

Since then, it has grown a lot and Bezos has to do nothing to reap the benefits but keep his shares.

But just because Bezos built one great thing that helps so many consumers, does that make him the best at giving away wealth? He claims it is actually HARD to do effectively. His ex-wife seems to bave given a lot more than he has. And Warren Buffett outsourced it to Bill Gates. And tons if people even hate Bill Gates for his vaccination programs in Africa - despite eradicating Polio.

Bill also speaks to world leaders and wants to spray mist in the atmosphere to cool the planet. And kill all mosquitoes. Pretty big plans.

Plus Bill buys a huge amount of farmland for some reason. What makes people think central planning would be the best way to allocate donations in the world?

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#29

Post by ceejayoz »

xiphias2 wrote: post #26

Does this cooperation mean that those fraudsters don't go to prison? The whole team knew about stealing billions of dollars of money, clearly there's more than 1 person (and more than 1 company's executives) that need prison time.

It means they get less prison time in exchange for helping prove the cases that give lots of prison time to others.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#30

Post by jcampbell1 »

In previous discussions, I said there was a 0% chance she got some sort of deal. I was downvoted to hell, but this guilty plea shows how it works in real life, not TV. The deal is you cooperate voluntarily and the court is allowed to provide sentencing leniency. The only thing she gets is the prosecution agrees to tell the court she cooperated.
Post reply on HN