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

FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#141

Post by ncallaway »

skrebbel wrote: post #124
greesil wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unavoidable now because of the Citizens United court decision. Of course it's bad, but what are you gonna do?

I don’t know, it’s not this prevalent everywhere so it is possible.

It wasn’t this prevalent here either until recently.

The Supreme Court has decided that Congress isn’t allowed to regulate this kind of behavior. The Court has also chipped away at bribery statutes, narrowing them significantly.

Unfortunately, without a constitutional amendment, new justices on the Supreme Court, or a revolution, there’s not a lot that can be done. I support an amendment, but with the current court it’s… we have a long way to go.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#143

Post by wpietri »

ncallaway wrote: post #138
skrebbel wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still baffled that this kind of corruption isn’t frowned upon more. People are buying influence. How is that supposed to be OK or normal?

I think it’s frowned upon by many. It’s extremely challenging to address since Citizens United made it legal, and the courts have chipped away at efforts to make it more transparent. I’m absolutely unhappy with the result. We legalized bribery and rank corruption. It’s awful for the system. What do you think it’s not frowned upon?

I think their point is more that it's not frowned upon by people with lots of power and/or money. US policy very often aligns with the interests of the rich, and being able to buy the policy they want is very much in the interests of the rich.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#144

Post by fnordpiglet »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #109
fnordpiglet wrote: post #92

Touching a bank, even briefly glancing it, is a fast way straight to federal pen if you’re attached to anything nefarious.

A small bank, right?

Any bank. Bank charters are attached with enormous responsibilities and consequences.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#146

Post by hericium »

Animats wrote: post #135
graeme wrote: post #95

I looked into this. They used to do business as Geniome Bank, and their job ads are for "crypto and marijuana". Almost no publicity, though they sponsored a few marijuana events. Chalopin usually shies away from press, so his personal involvement is odd. His son is also the chief digital officer of the company. Another curiosity is the old Farmington team is still there, including the presdient, and they still appear…

Oh, joy. Looking at the Internet Archive's copy of "moonstonebank.com" from before the crash: CEO: Ron Oliveira. There's a new CEO now. Lots of crypto-related material. Most useful links end at "Request Early Access" or "Contact Us". It doesn't look like they really wanted customers. > Could have been part of a larger plan which collapsed with FTX. Unclear. The bank may have been used by FTX in some way. But it looks…

> It doesn't look like they really wanted customers.

Elon blabbered about making Twitter a bank to avoid bankrupcy.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#147

Post by vkou »

jzmorganchase wrote: post #97
kyrra wrote: post #55

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon... FTX and it's executives donated $70 million to politicians as well (in the last 18 months). SBF donated $40MM to Democrats, and a different executive donated $23MM to Republicans. They were trying to buy all kinds of influence.

Pretty wild but I worked with the other executive here Ryan Salame at a different company before he worked at Alameda/FTX a few year ago. He was a fairly junior so it's sort of surreal to see that he became co-CEO and had enough liquid wealth to be donating $20m+ for political campaigns.

Given how FTX was buying it's executives houses, I doubt that was his liquid wealth, I think he was just dipping into the FTX customer deposit piggy bank.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#148

Post by HWR_14 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23
fisherjeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.

> Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.

That doesn't matter. Who cares how the public sees him? All that's going to matter is how a jury sees him shortly. And the prosecution will be able to present evidence.

In the meantime, let him keep speaking on the record and admitting to things. And providing a show for those of use who are paying attention.

Besides, I'm not sure how many "average listeners" are going to be tuning into the NYT event. I assume it's mostly people who have been following the story.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#149

Post by HWR_14 »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #9
fisherjeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

All he seems to be able to say is that yes, he did YOLO with customer funds, and he is really sorry and wishes he didn't do that.

Has he moved on to wishing he didn't do that? I've only heard him say he wished the YOLO worked.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#150

Post by dgfitz »

ncallaway wrote: post #141
skrebbel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know, it’s not this prevalent everywhere so it is possible.

It wasn’t this prevalent here either until recently. The Supreme Court has decided that Congress isn’t allowed to regulate this kind of behavior. The Court has also chipped away at bribery statutes, narrowing them significantly. Unfortunately, without a constitutional amendment, new justices on the Supreme Court, or a revolution, there’s not a lot that can be done. I support an amendment, but with the current court i…

Or the “honest and honerable” politicians stop accepting donations they know are evil.

Ah never mind, we all know they can’t help it.

Post reply on HN