101–110 of 350 posts
This has nothing to do with Tether the author added it jut as a sauce, hilarious
Tether has similarly been caught in the past using the funds behind their supposedly "fully backed" tokens for highly speculative investment. So far it's just such a big scam that no one has been able to create a large enough run to topple it... so far.
It's incredible that SBF was being touted by Sequoia, WEF, Fortune, chumming it up with Clinton and Blair in the Bahamas, getting meetings and kid glove treatment with the SEC, relatively glowing profile as a "do-gooder" by the NYT. All while FTX had a Chief Regulatory Officer who was basically a career white-collar criminal. It beggars belief that anyone who dug half an inch into this story wouldn't have seen 90,000…
Wait, wasn't the NYT supposed to take a very critical look at everything in "tech", as a matter of editorial policy? Why were they giving such a glowing (no pun intended!) endorsement of crypto, of all things? Something doesn't add up here.
It's incredible that SBF was being touted by Sequoia, WEF, Fortune, chumming it up with Clinton and Blair in the Bahamas, getting meetings and kid glove treatment with the SEC, relatively glowing profile as a "do-gooder" by the NYT. All while FTX had a Chief Regulatory Officer who was basically a career white-collar criminal. It beggars belief that anyone who dug half an inch into this story wouldn't have seen 90,000…
Quoted post unavailable.
> Friedberg, who served as FTX’s general counsel before taking on the company’s regulatory role, was recently described by Coingeek’s Steven Stradbrooke as being “almost comically inappropriate” for the job. The description appears apt, given Friedberg’s long history of not complying with various jurisdictions’ regulations, but rather, evading them. Can't make this up. Reads to me like, on the contrary, they couldn't…
This whole thing sounds like a Netflix movie waiting to happen.
Is there truth to the U.S. sending money to Ukraine -> Ukraine funding FTX -> FTX being 2nd largest donor to Democratic party in the U.S.? Timeline: - April 25, 2019: Biden announces his presidential campaign. - 13 days later, Sam Bankman-Fried, son of Barbara Fried (co-founder of political fundraising organizations), launched FTX crypto exchange. - The exchange is an overnight success. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBM) become…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, this is Alameda's CEO. https://youtu.be/aW6SqLXw944 Un fucking believable.
Already gone, do you have a mirror?
There is a German saying: "Wo ein Trog ist kommen die Schweine." roughly translates to "Where there is a trough - the pigs will come." Rather fitting for all the crypto meltdowns in the last years.
Actually, this seems like a rather interesting defense of crypto. To use the metaphor, did the trough create the pigs? Or did it only draw a horde of pre-existing pigs to one place? Perhaps the amount of quasi-criminals that we are seeing in the crypto sector right now is just a sign that crypto was highly successful and not a condemnation of crypto in and of itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With every crypto collapse there seems to be an associated failure by the media to do any real digging. The same thing happened with Theranos where, with a few exceptions, the media fawned over Elizabeth Holmes. It's hard to tell if the media has gotten worse at their jobs or they've always been this bad and I'm just getting older. There are plenty of earlier scams and bubbles (Enron, dot-com bubble) that slipped und…
“The media” is mostly just a bunch of 20-40 year olds with liberal arts bachelors degrees, trying to make ends meet and feed their families. Serious investigative reporters with the smarts and experience to dive deep were always the exception, maybe a handful in the world at any given time. So IMO, “they’ve always been this bad” is the answer, but it’s not entirely fair. Kind of like saying the cooks at McDonald’s ha…
Sounds like the "Yuppie Nuremberg Defense" from Thank You For Smoking, in which a tobacco lobbyist excuses himself by saying he has a mortgage to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone offered you 1BTC for $10k right now you would bite their hand off. At $14k it would be still some of the easiest money you've made in your life. Even if you have the most cynical opinion of cryptocurrency, you must admit it's alive and well. It is as long as there are enough people who believe that it is - and your honest answer to the above would reveal that you know that to still be very true.
Oh absolutely. Had I known the absurdity of crypto would still have been going on this long, I would have set up a bunch of rug pulls and run away with the money. Interrst rate hikes kill zombie companies. Scams put dumb people under the lash of their betters.
Continuing this line of thought, isn't the next level of "betters" the people who would readily employ violence to get retribution on those who scammed them? Or even those who would just employ violence to take what they want in general?
I can understand the law of the jungle as-it-currently-is point that boils down to "lol normie rubes fell for advertising", but extrapolating that out into an overarching moral judgement makes no sense unless you're also repudiating the specialization of labor that has led to most of our current prosperity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crypto has attracted almost every type of criminal under the sun This is actually quite a profound statement. Is there actually anything in human history that can come close to rivalling this ? We have everyone from teens promoting shitcoins on TikTok, to household celebrities like Matt Damon, to white collar criminals, to arguably VCs, all the way to nation states like Iran and North Korea.
I would give a pass to any celebrity that was paid to be in advertisements. They are paid to make an appearance and say lines convincingly. We don't have written accounts of the tulip craze but I would imagine there were a lot of nefarious activities underway then. This is more global and the movement of money is transparent but anonymous in some ways. I think a hard part for a criminal enterprise like a drug cartel…
Sure, they can almost always find someone willing to do the advert. But that does not absolve that person of the moral consequenses of doing the work.
>>I would give a pass to any celebrity that was paid to be in advertisements. They are paid to make an appearance and say lines convincingly.
The exact same moral structure can be said about this, even though it is an extreme example: "I would give a pass to any assassin that was paid to kill the targets. They are paid to accurately deliver lethal doses of bullets or toxins and ensure that the targets end up dead."
Obviously, none of us would consider giving a pass to the assassin because it was a "professional paid job", even if (s)he was doing to feed his/her starving family.
Why should we give a pass to the actors? While different levels and directness of harm, both are taking money to do harm to others.
[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-clooney-35-million-one...