What Happened at Alameda Research
milkyeggs.com
What Happened at Alameda Research
1–10 of 437 posts
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#2Archive: https://archive.ph/kkpuz
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#3I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources.
He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#4Two words: Ponzi Scheme.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#5Two words: Ponzi Scheme.
And worse: pretty much everyone was aware of it, but thought that because they were aware of it and everyone else is a schmuck, they could benefit from it. Some did, but only if they liquidated their holdings last year.
NFTs this year was a microcosm of exactly that. Loads of people jumped on the bandwagon, buying up NFTs as they were released, but the whole thing collapsed again when it turned out the resale market just wasn't there. Except for the first movers.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#6I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
But the author makes it very clear in the second par "our claims only remain tentative at best".
Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tries to answer the question of what happened, albeit with appropriate caveats, than something which doesn't advance the understanding of the reader at all?
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#7I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
But the author makes it very clear in the second par "our claims only remain tentative at best". Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tries to answer the question of what happened, albeit with appropriate caveats, than something which doesn't advance the understanding of the reader at all?
The New York Times piece is even worse, since it paints a misleading picture of SBF and his cronies losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely).
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#8I like how OP opens smugly by calling the NYT article a fluff piece, then proceeds to immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources. He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources.
the anonymous Twitter anecdotes are clearly far better than what the NYT people can come up with because Twitter is where all of these people spend their time.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#9Before or after they were bribing politicians for favourable regulation for FTX at the detriment of their competitors who were not fraudulent?
https://prospect.org/power/sam-bankman-frieds-multimillion-d...
> Crypto’s supporters in Congress are determined to ignore the massive gap in capacity between the two agencies; in fact, they likely understand that its incapacity is part of its appeal to FTX. A bill proposed by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) seeks to grant the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction over any agreement, contract, or transaction involving a contract of sale of a digital asset that is offered, solicited, traded, executed, or otherwise dealt in interstate commerce, including market activities relating to ancillary assets.” Perhaps in anticipation of such a move, FTX has stocked up its ranks with former CFTC officials. Former CFTC commissioner and acting chair Mark Wetjen is FTX’s head of policy and regulatory strategy. Ryne Miller, who was legal counsel to Gensler when he led the CFTC, is FTX’s general counsel. The Tech Transparency Project has also identified 14 other cases of CFTC alumni revolving into the crypto industry.
Vote these people out.
Re: What Happened at Alameda Research
#10I find it curious Musk was able to snif out SBF as a bullshit artist in his 30 min. Meeting with him, whereas countless polititions and regulators aparently did not have a clue despite years of meetings and other contacts.