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

151–160 of 226 posts

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

#151

Post by jzmorganchase »

vkou wrote: post #147
jzmorganchase wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep that's the most likely scenario outside of secondary stock sales or personal sales of large amounts of FTT.

What's weird about him though is he wasn't listed as one of the "close insiders" who allegedly knew about the transfers of customers funds from FTX -> Alameda despite being "co-CEO" and there from the beginning of FTX's creation.

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

#152

Post by tiahura »

greesil wrote: post #117
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?

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

Maybe I’m dense, but what difference does it make whether it was SBF or FTX making the donations? Why implicate Citizens United?

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

#153

Post by HWR_14 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #25
returnInfinity wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, same. Sorkin says he won't hold back.

This is a huge red flag. Bankman-Fried is acting like the fix is already in. I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until they slam the iron bars closed behind him.

If you're trusting what SBF is implying about a fix being in, well I have some FTT to sell you.

The guy is going to jail. If you want to make a bet on it, I'm willing to do so.

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

#154

Post by cstejerean »

brookst wrote: post #69
largepeepee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like he hasn't been talking or typing. His lawyers probably reckoned he was talking way too much, was too much of a liability and dropped him immediately. The real question is he keeps receiving positive media coverage? They keep trying to frame him as, just a "dumb kid and his friends" that "accidentally misplaced billions" - when in fact, it is pretty obvious he planned most of it, by how his complex corpo…

Not sure where you’re seeing this coordinated effort to frame him positively. Im sure there are some takes like that, but there is also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-in-th... https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incom... I’m seeing plenty of critical coverage. Are you really not seeing that?

Headlines like "Sam Bankman-Fried’s Plans to Save the World Went Down in Flames" paint him in a more positive light than he deserves IMO. There were no plans to save the world.

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

#155

Post by lowbloodsugar »

From the wapo article, talking about real estate in the Bahamas:

“Literally, the day it occurred, they called and said, ‘Let me know. I will pay cash,’” Hillier said. “People see opportunity.”

Huh. It’s almost like how rich people buy property is:

1. Create a ponzu scheme or other financial shenanigans 2. Get money from peoples. 3. Spend proles’ money on ridiculous assets and property 4. Declare said scheme bankrupt 5. Step in and buy assets for pennies on dollar.

Ideally, step 4 happens during a financial crisis so that proles can’t get access to borrowed money, thereby reducing competition for assets.

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

#157

Post by quickthrower2 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #144
quickthrower2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small bank, right?

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

For big banks: fines yes, prison, usually no.

For example https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-fed-terminates-e...

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

#158

Post by hef19898 »

hericium wrote: post #146
Animats wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, a person that ognored rules from both, the SEC and FTC, is a perfect candidate to run a bank. Sounds plausible so, in the sense of that being Elon's plan.

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

#159

Post by erik_seaberg »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #139
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?

Band together with other citizens and demand an end of this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons. The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power to the people, the laws were never intended to grant personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.

What kind of organization should citizens be allowed to create to promote a political position, if not a corporation?

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

#160

Post by watwut »

dgfitz wrote: post #150
ncallaway wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Money matter in campaign. Politicians accepting these have massive advantage over those who don't- so they end up more winning.
Post reply on HN