181–190 of 790 posts
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1590012133307478016 >Note that http://FTX.us and http://Binance.us – two separate companies–are not currently impacted by this. http://FTX.us withdrawals are and have been live, is fully backed 1:1, and operating normally. I wonder if this means SBF will continue operating FTX.us as a competitor to other US-based exchanges.
Really seems like vindication for the US's regulatory scheme that in that it keeps US customers out of these shenanigans.
Its funny how a few days back some people on HN were saying FTX is unlikely to be illiquid because SBF is a genius from JaneStreet.
SBF said "We don't invest client assets (even in treasuries)". [0] He then says the purpose of the transaction with Binance is to "clear out the liquidity crunches". [1] How could there be a liquidity crunch if assets are not invested? You can't do a bank run on an entity that doesn't function as a bank and doesn't invest clients assets... Something is shifty. [0] https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/158959828579870720…
12:38 PM · Nov 7, 2022 2) FTX has enough to cover all client holdings. [0] 4:03 PM · Nov 8, 2022 2) Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1. This is one of the main reasons we’ve asked Binance to come in. [1] has enough to cover all client holdings ---> not enough to cover all client holding in 24 hours. Either they los…
Right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't FTT like FTX's own issuing tokens? It's like printing one's own money. But when the backing firm fails, the printed money is worthless, just like what LUNA issued by Terra had become.
It only matters if FTX was using FTT as a collateral for accounting purposes for a valuation that is not realistic considering the liquidity of a position size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
12:38 PM · Nov 7, 2022 2) FTX has enough to cover all client holdings. [0] 4:03 PM · Nov 8, 2022 2) Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1. This is one of the main reasons we’ve asked Binance to come in. [1] has enough to cover all client holdings ---> not enough to cover all client holding in 24 hours. Either they los…
If everybody walked into their bank right now to withdrawal, they couldn't cover either. Right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing decentralized about FTX or Binance. They operate in an opaque manner like any traditional business, transparency comes from forced audits & regulation. Decentralized finance is built on chain where all assets are publicly auditable at all times. EDIT: parent comment talked about decentralized finance, then edited to remove mentions of defi
Even without the edit, your response feels like a no-true-scotsman i.e. an attempt to remove bad actors who deal in decentralized cryptocurrencies from the purity that is defi. What are some large, successful defi organizations today?
I am extremely bullish on crypto, and have been for the last decade. That said: the sooner we can get rid of these weird centralized exchanges and weird messiah figures the better. The next thing I thing will explode is Cardano, which appears to function approximately like a cult, with no actual product (as far as I can tell). Ethereum, LINK, and Bitcoin. Everything else is a distraction.
Its funny how a few days back some people on HN were saying FTX is unlikely to be illiquid because SBF is a genius from JaneStreet.
And people who knew what they were actually talking about were pointing out that it's unlikely anyone would have voluntarily left Jane Street as early as he did. But they were largely ignored.
Wasn't there a post hitting the HN front page just yesterday or two days ago about how FTX was close to being illiquid, and most of the top comments were about how wrong that analysis was? Or was that another crypto trader? If anybody could help my sieve-like brain, that would be very appreciated :-)