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

Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 157 posts

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#51

Post by blitzar »

kodah wrote: post #46
moralestapia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird argument you're making, >2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house. Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ... Co…

The court is not a creditor and your credit worthiness (thankfully for most folks) does not apply in court. The court is taking the promise of property (defined widely) should Sam fail to appear. This system, if the value is high enough, will keep him in the country to face justice. Phrased another way, we're about to find out if SBF is morally bankrupt enough to take away a huge portion of his parents assets as well…

> Phrased another way, we're about to find out if SBF is morally bankrupt enough to take away a huge portion of his parents assets as well.

huge portion being +/-10x their net worth and a debt that can not be discharged through bankrupcy.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#52

Post by itslennysfault »

maxbond wrote: post #5
thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

If he's such a flight risk he needs a 250m bond signed by multiple parties why not just keep him in jail? I don't get it.

He has a constitutional right to it. He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

No, he doesn't. If he was some random drug dealer that couldn't make bail he'd wait in jail for trial. The same rules should apply to him. Put up $25m (10%) or wait in jail. The bail amount was set at $250m because he is a substantial flight risk. Sitting in jail awaiting trial is not cruel or unusual. It's extremely common.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#53

Post by fanso99 »

maxbond wrote: post #25
moralestapia wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?(!) The guy stole billions from average people AND big time investors (he pissed on both buckets), he then proceeded to make such dumb mistakes that make him seem like it has a borderline mental issue, he also happens to be an absolute zero for charisma. How do you expect someone to sympathize with him, honestly? What would you like to happen then?

He's been charged, there's a mountain of evidence against him, and he's facing trial. That's what my expectations were. I don't think see a need to crank every step of the process up to 11. He's on a conveyor belt leading to a meat grinder.

People are upset that he is getting special treatment. Again. He doesn't deserve it.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#54

Post by nkurz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #31
nkurz wrote: post #2

I think this article is "directionally correct", but wrong (or at least misleading) about some key details. > Instead, Bankman-Fried’s parents promised to pledge their Palo Alto, California, home as collateral. The Palo Alto home is rumored to be worth $4 million. And that is the full extent of the collateral pledged to guarantee the $250 million bond. No other collateral was posted or promised. The first couple sent…

> Which is to say, at least according to the published agreement, it is not true that "no other collateral was posted or agreed to". This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. OTOH, federal law allows fully unsecured , personal bond of the accused if the jidge thi…

> This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house.

Thanks for the detail. I wasn't sure if the "bonds in lesser amounts" were clearly just signed promises to pay, or might also include additional property bonds. It's the "lesser amounts" that confuses me. Does this mean that the additional signer(s) would not actually be responsible for the full $250M if both Sam and his parents were to flee? If so, this would seem to imply that the court has decided that Sam and his parents have non-tainted assets worth more than $250M, which doesn't match the story we've heard so far.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#55

Post by maxbond »

itslennysfault wrote: post #52
maxbond wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has a constitutional right to it. He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

No, he doesn't. If he was some random drug dealer that couldn't make bail he'd wait in jail for trial. The same rules should apply to him. Put up $25m (10%) or wait in jail. The bail amount was set at $250m because he is a substantial flight risk. Sitting in jail awaiting trial is not cruel or unusual. It's extremely common.

No, people who commit street level crimes should be given the same grace he's receiving.

Denying bail because we think this guy is extra guilty (as opposed to, say, because he has a history of domestic abuse, and releasing him could put people at risk) would be cruel and unusual, because it would be discretionary.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#56

Post by [deleted] »

moralestapia wrote: post #8
nkurz wrote: post #2

I think this article is "directionally correct", but wrong (or at least misleading) about some key details. > Instead, Bankman-Fried’s parents promised to pledge their Palo Alto, California, home as collateral. The Palo Alto home is rumored to be worth $4 million. And that is the full extent of the collateral pledged to guarantee the $250 million bond. No other collateral was posted or promised. The first couple sent…

What a weird argument you're making, >2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house. Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ... Co…

[deleted]

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

maxbond wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> believe he's guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, it shouldn't disturb you that he's on house arrest instead of in prison I don’t believe in his guilt beyond even reasonable suspicion. I do think he is a flight risk. He is delusional enough to attempt it, and may have the hidden means by which to make it.

Okay. So he's on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem?

> on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem?

That it’s not a jail. Jails are tougher to get out of than ankle bracelets.

His parents are going to spend the rest of their lives fighting civil lawsuits, if not criminal cases of their own. Losing their home is a matter of time. It is difficult to even say to what degree their plight matters to him.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#58

Post by tiahura »

loeg wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is to say, at least according to the published agreement, it is not true that "no other collateral was posted or agreed to". This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. OTOH, federal law allows fully unsecured , personal bond of the accused if the jidge thi…

Extending a large unsecured personal bond to a fraudster seems pretty useless and I think laypeople can recognize that.

Hence, the ankle monitor and his parents’ house.

And judge, don’t forget, Mr. SBF voluntarily waived extradition.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#59

Post by cageface »

maxbond wrote: post #4
nkurz wrote: post #2

I think this article is "directionally correct", but wrong (or at least misleading) about some key details. > Instead, Bankman-Fried’s parents promised to pledge their Palo Alto, California, home as collateral. The Palo Alto home is rumored to be worth $4 million. And that is the full extent of the collateral pledged to guarantee the $250 million bond. No other collateral was posted or promised. The first couple sent…

Seems like there's a group of people who want him to be obliterated and will be dissatisfied at every step if it isn't mounting his head on a pike. It's honestly one of the more disturbing parts of the story for me.

At least in my circle the people screaming the loudest for his head are the same people that are adamantly opposed to any government regulation of crypto. I think they're just mad that SBF spoiled their get rich quick scheme.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#60

Post by DennisP »

ethanbond wrote: post #37
BobbyJo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? He did plenty more harm to plenty more people than many others who had to wait in jail for their trial. I think it's perfectly rational to be upset that someone who destroyed billions in wealth is treated more kindly by the justice system than than people who've done far less damage.

Did he destroy billions in wealth? Seems to me that he made chart go up for no reason and everyone was perfectly happy with that, and when chart went down for the same reasons (i.e. fraud/no legitimate reason) then everyone is upset about it. If people are upset about lesser offenses getting handled more aggressively, they should spend some time lobbying for lesser offenses to get handled less aggressively.

This has nothing to do with the chart. FTX terms of service promised that if customers had a simple account, without signing up for higher-risk stuff, then FTX would hold their full assets at all times without putting them at risk.

Then SBF allegedly moved those assets over to Alameda for risky trades, and also pulled some out to buy fancy houses.

Post reply on HN