131–140 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the common man, "made money" and "experienced economic harm" would contradict each other. In that way the title misleads.
They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's definitely a pattern, but I don't want to assume motive. I doubt SBF will get his retrial, but still, it's good PR for a lot of people -- for Effective Altruism, for Stanford, for Sequoia -- whose reputations took a hit here. It's even good PR for the bankruptcy team to say that they got full restitution. And for the journalists, of course, it's a headline that really pops. But sitting here, we can't really k…
Or, it's just kinda and interesting story on it's own, no crazy conspiracy theories needed? When Bernie Madoff or Enron or any of the other major headline-grabbing frauds fell apart, the victims generally got back almost nothing. The fact that FTX is returning all of the user's money, plus interest, is quite unique and newsworthy.
I bought a Solana NFT that I never took off of FTX. Anyone know if I can do anything about that?
What’s the current fair market value of a “solana NFT”?
The statement is misleading. People are making 18% interest on the value of Bitcoin et al. at the value of 2022, which is less than $20k. Now that is $60k, back to the value levels of 2021. Thus, the only reason there is interest is that the cryptocurrencies found gained back their value, and the bankruptcy court gets to consider the values when the bankruptcy started in 2022, not current/before 2022 values.
You are correct. As phrased, this headline and large parts of the article are fake news. The first sentence about "profiting from the money they put into the exchange" is particularly egregious. Nobody was putting money into the exchange when withdrawals were frozen, which is when these marks are from. The reference amount that's being "repaid" is a low quote from near the bottom of the crash. Nobody signed up for th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you observe me just for the moment I have on hand 1B, my net worth is 1B and JP Morgan will be willing to lend me 10B. Worst comes to worst tax payer bails again the banks out.
Why do you think the tax payer taking a gigantic loss is a good thing? I'd prefer that the government fund food for children rather than confidence men/women
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how bankruptcy documents work, but this is not a filling, it's a general-audience article. The truth is if you had one Bitcoin in FTX, that was worth 20k. You might have bought for more or less than that. Now it's worth 60k. You didn't get the 20k back immediately (in which case you could have repurchased the Bitcoin immediately and not lose anything). - If you bought Bitcoin above 20k, you lost money, w…
This is such a bad faith argument. Imagine you put up your house as an investment into some crypto exchange and the exchange goes bankrupt because it turns out they're misusing customer funds and defrauding their customers. You'll get your house back when legal proceedings are done. What value that house has before or after is sort of irrelevant except as a way for you to twist the issue to fit your narrative. Nobody…
This. I'm constantly surprised that the government helps people in these situations. If they want the government to be involved, they should push for crypto to actually follow all of the laws that apply to traditional financial things, which would eliminate a lot of these scams that end up requiring government intervention in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
Okay? I don't see how that makes it any less misleading. Compared to a universe where FTX did not go bankrupt, the creditors have much less money.
Effectively they invested $100, that investment dropped to $0 (while funds were locked away during bankruptcy), and now they're worth $119.
The headline is only notable as usually creditors do not get 100% of their initial capital back during a bankruptcy, nevermind over 100%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the story he likes to tell and it’s repeated uncritically often enough, but I find it stupendously unlikely to be reality that he converted 5k into 27k playing blackjack of all games. And that that one week was enough to see him through to close 11m at an unspecified future date after having burned 80m getting the company up and running. I chalk it up more to myth building and would love to see a reporter that…
It's survivor bias. It seems unlikely, but we know FedEx to be a successful company to some reasonable level at this point in time. It stands to reason at some point in the past the company was very close to collapse. If it had collapsed we would never have heard about it.
I bought a Solana NFT that I never took off of FTX. Anyone know if I can do anything about that?
There was an NFT section in the claim form so certainly they are aware of but I'm not sure it's still open
>Can I still file a claim?
>The Kroll Portal will remain accessible after the Bar Date to amend or file a claim. Absent order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, any claims filed after the bar date may be disputed.
So it might still be worth filling out the form - who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? I don't see how that makes it any less misleading. Compared to a universe where FTX did not go bankrupt, the creditors have much less money.
They have made more money than they invested. It is by definition a return on investment, not the return or timescale they envisaged but a return nonetheless i.e >100%. Effectively they invested $100, that investment dropped to $0 (while funds were locked away during bankruptcy), and now they're worth $119. The headline is only notable as usually creditors do not get 100% of their initial capital back during a bankru…
IMO it absolutely should in this case, especially since the creditors demonstrated their desire to invest in the opportunity being considered, but I don't really care enough to argue about it over the Internet.