181–190 of 197 posts
Interesting to see Binance lie and say it was an algo mistake as opposed to a human one.
Honest question: How do you determine that something like this was an honest mistake? Once, when I was much younger, I had a side gig dealing poker at an underground club in NYC. One morning at the end of 10 hours dealing, I accidentally exposed a burn card which turned out to be something one of the players was representing (bluffing), with about $10k on the table. It was an honest mistake - literally a fat finger m…
> Only after I had quit and refused to come back do I think he actually knew for certain that I wasn't pulling a scam. In interactions of bluff, bluff, and double bluff suspicion never dies. Quitting indignantly on principal is either a sure sign of innocence or a true con artist cutting and putting distance from a 'scam', staying can be just as ambiguous. I'm not doubting your innocence here, just doubting that ther…
Who said anything about quitting indignantly on principle? The sequence of events goes like this:
1. Dealer deals a round of cards, does not intend to reveal a card, but does anyway.
2. Dealer is informed that if that happens again, he'll be executed.
No amount of indignation is necessary to get the dealer to quit. All that's necessary is that the dealer believe the assurance he's given in step 2. The mistake is guaranteed to happen again -- if the dealer was able to avoid doing it, that's what would have happened in step 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the default assumption is that there's a scam and the employee is guilty until proven innocent. To answer your real question - my guess is that this was a place that had a history of moving fast and breaking things. But probably more importantly - there was no way for that person to benefit from the mistake. The BTC price recovered automatically through the quick arbitrage market. The only way they could have benef…
Why do you think they didn't have a counterparty with a lot of purchases queued up at certain trigger levels on the exchange? It would have been an easy way to make a lot of money. Then blame a nameless employee for an honest mistake and come out looking as if they'd just absorbed a loss for moving too fast.
There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers.
The other argument for it being a mistake is that if you really wanted to have exploited Alameda/FTX (not sure which, or if there was a distinction), the person could have tried to take more. The amount is small enough to be a “mistake”, but not large enough to make the higher ups question it. Maybe the gains would have been enough for a corrupt party, but something makes me doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think they didn't have a counterparty with a lot of purchases queued up at certain trigger levels on the exchange? It would have been an easy way to make a lot of money. Then blame a nameless employee for an honest mistake and come out looking as if they'd just absorbed a loss for moving too fast.
Namely because it would have been too obvious. To have this work, that person would have to have set limits well below anyone else. So low that it would have been obvious when someone just so happened to offer BTC at a much reduced price. There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers.…
Meanwhile, I just find it hard to believe that the accepted narrative - backed up by this story - is that SBF lost $10M in this little fuckup and pardoned the employee who made the error. Seriously? This article? How did he know the employee was innocent, how was that proven to be a mistake, and what happened to the employee? Seems even more plausible given this paper-thin explanation that the flash crash was deliberately triggered to move some money off book. The fat fingered employee, if they exist, gets the blame and is nobly pardoned.
I certainly would hope the FBI is putting together a list of all the unrelated counterparties who profited during that event, just to rule out related ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only after I had quit and refused to come back do I think he actually knew for certain that I wasn't pulling a scam. In interactions of bluff, bluff, and double bluff suspicion never dies. Quitting indignantly on principal is either a sure sign of innocence or a true con artist cutting and putting distance from a 'scam', staying can be just as ambiguous. I'm not doubting your innocence here, just doubting that ther…
The value of a bluff - and the value of a hand - is all about what's in the pot. I made clear that my integrity and my life were worth a lot more than whatever fraction of $10k a crooked dealer would've gotten. There are plenty of guys who might try to do something like that for $5k, but I'm not one of them. I'm sure the doubt remained. What you wrote kind of reinforces my point that it's very hard to be sure that an…
There could be nothing more at play here than rational self-interest. You quit to preserve your life; this is rationally the best move for your risk-adjusted interests. The house gets to say (possibly very visibly - did you quit on the spot?) that the dealer no longer works here, which mollifies the customer, because the potentially-corrupt dealer is no longer in a position where they can influence outcomes. So it's the best outcome for the house. And then the hand has already been played, so the customer now has a sunk cost on their bluff, but you're gone, so at least they know that if you are corrupt, you won't be dealing any more hands to them. So it's the best outcome for the customer.
You don't need to trust people who aren't in a position to hurt you anyway. That's why walking away is sometimes so powerful: you just change a bad situation by removing yourself from the equation, and start over somewhere better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think they didn't have a counterparty with a lot of purchases queued up at certain trigger levels on the exchange? It would have been an easy way to make a lot of money. Then blame a nameless employee for an honest mistake and come out looking as if they'd just absorbed a loss for moving too fast.
Namely because it would have been too obvious. To have this work, that person would have to have set limits well below anyone else. So low that it would have been obvious when someone just so happened to offer BTC at a much reduced price. There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers.…
It's a bit rarer to have limit orders at say 1/4 the current price but not extremely low, but they still happen. Enough to have plausible deniability at least. Check the order books; my recollection is that this was still O(hundreds) of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Namely because it would have been too obvious. To have this work, that person would have to have set limits well below anyone else. So low that it would have been obvious when someone just so happened to offer BTC at a much reduced price. There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers.…
You wouldn't necessarily need to have those buy orders in place the day before. You could time them to go in at $10k if BTC fell below $13k, for instance. Even the exchange might not detect that if it were done carefully. Meanwhile, I just find it hard to believe that the accepted narrative - backed up by this story - is that SBF lost $10M in this little fuckup and pardoned the employee who made the error. Seriously?…
I've lost $50M for my employer (a large, reputable, very by-the-book tech company). I've also gained $100M for my employer, on a project that was canceled because it didn't make enough money. (I half-jokingly asked "Well would you spin it out, I'd love to have $100M?", but it was too tied to corporate infrastructure.) My current project is on track to lose ~$10M/year for my employer, but it's considered strategically important, and so we've run it up the chain and every indication is that it's going to launch anyway.
It just doesn't matter when you make billions. It's like how you stop clipping coupons when you start making a six-figure salary, because the time and attention needed to sweat $0.50 isn't worth it when your paycheck is $10K/month.