Live data from Hacker News

Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

adityabaradwaj.com

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#191
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my sense too. What's kind of funny is we weirdly get caught up and excited by the hype... every single time

I always felt like SBF was a massive fraud. When someone is inflated as a genius and "the kindest billionaire" for superficial things like not driving an expensive car and not dressing appropriately, it sends alarm bells ringing to me. Acting like the exaggerated TV stereotype of a tech nerd screams "I'm covering something up", just like what happened with Theranos.

Hmm my reaction to that is "good marketing." People who have some kind of shtick tend to get more media coverage.

Like, was Steve Jobs (turtleneck) covering something up? Zuck (t shirts)? Newsom with his Bruce Wayne hair?

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt like SBF was a massive fraud. When someone is inflated as a genius and "the kindest billionaire" for superficial things like not driving an expensive car and not dressing appropriately, it sends alarm bells ringing to me. Acting like the exaggerated TV stereotype of a tech nerd screams "I'm covering something up", just like what happened with Theranos.

Hmm my reaction to that is "good marketing." People who have some kind of shtick tend to get more media coverage. Like, was Steve Jobs (turtleneck) covering something up? Zuck (t shirts)? Newsom with his Bruce Wayne hair?

Maybe it's just because I'm too young to have seen much of Steve Jobs prior to his death, but my impression of coverage surrounding him was that while he did have certain behaviors he insisted on and were often talked about like his turtlenecks, it didn't really fit the stereotype of a tech nerd of the time.

Back then "nerd" seemed to have a much more negative connotation and seemed to describe people who were closer to "gross" than "quirky", like the trope of them constantly having a runny nose or sneezing everywhere due to allergies. Steve on the other hand came off as very clean and insistent on dressing nicely, even if in his own style.

I feel like Zuck was/is similarly seen as a sham for his entire robotic persona. Perhaps not as a scam, but he certainly never seemed to be all that liked by people.

I don't know anything about Newsom to comment on that one. But one other example where I was telling people it was probably a scam beforehand was Nikola. I don't recall what about his behavior did it for me, but something was just off about him in the way SBF was that just screamed deception.

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#193
Seems like a bunch of kids who were born into borderline fraudulent culture... and now damage control pieces (ordered from SBF's jail cell maybe, ha) are being tolerated... maybe with the tacit support of a culture which would rather think of these as things that 'everyone does.' Somewhat akin to the Stanford or Harvard data integrity issues, maybe? This is just business as usual and sometimes it spills over. Who cares as long as you are headquartered in the Caymans, right? To be sure, all of these 'oopsies! SBF is such a sweet, gentle soul' articles of late look a little weird. Dude threw his GF under the bus in obvious fashion.

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#194
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the total (ostensible) value of all coins that have been mined in a given cryptocurrency. These values should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, as they are considerably larger than the total value that could be realized if holders of a currency decided to try to cash out.

You realize that this is how valuations for publicly-traded companies are calculated, right? Also the networths of people whose vast majority of wealth is tied to publicly-traded shares.

So, it's a bit different. In the simplest case, a company pays 1bn dividends every year, so if 5% is considered a good rate of return currently, and there's no reason to expect the company's profitability changes much, then the value of that company is $20bn. Now, obviously, there's a lot of complexity layered on top of this. Many companies don't do dividends, preferring stock buybacks, for various reasons. Some companies are valued on _assumed future profits_, not current (ie valued on potential). And then there's speculation. But ultimately, if half of the $20bn company is suddenly sold, well, the price, in a rational market, shouldn't actually move much, unless the future value of money has also shifted. The company could be taken private by someone who had $20bn and thought $1bn/year was a good return.

Bitcoin's really pretty different; the value is ~entirely speculation driven. It does not, and cannot, pay dividends, or buy back its own 'shares', or anything like that. No-one would ever consider buying all the bitcoins (in the same way they might take the $20bn company private); the sole value of bitcoin is in other people wanting to buy bitcoin.

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#195
post #10

> According to SBF, the utility we gained by moving fast outweighed the occasional costs we paid due to poor risk checks, hacks, and the like. This was SBF's work philosophy, and it drove the culture he created at Alameda and FTX. Moving fast is great, but you need structure to support it. If you front load your development with guard rails that ensure you're always on track, then you "aim small, miss small" so to sp…

And this is why this sort of thing will always keep happening, especially in new fields. It's like an anthropic principle of competition. If you're willing to cut corners in a way that could blow up the whole company, you can get ahead, therefore the leaders in a new field most likely cut a lot of corners and may be at risk of blowing up.

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

You're thinking very small. People who actually own global businesses think in terms of billions, and SBF had billions. $10M is rounding error to them. 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?"…

my dude, my paycheck is $10k a month, and I still clip coupons. Why? Because something I learned from poker. Winning is as simple as never losing money you don't have to lose.

SBF may have been "worth billions," but he sure didn't have enough escape cash on hand when he needed it.

Your division, project managers, VPs may throw around 9-figures worth of investment capital on loss leaders, party on the Riviera and give everyone Christmas bonuses, but all that means squat to someone like SBF once he's under indictment.

A cold hard $10 million in pocket, off the books, earned illegally, that can't be tracked back is worth a lot more than controlling a billion dollar budget or even getting a $100 million paycheck.

The very fact that it's considered a rounding error would work to the benefit of whoever had set up the scam. The real scam is setting up a corporation where you can pass off a rounding error large enough to let you escape federal custody, and that's where he fell short.

I'm pointing out why it would have been a worthwhile scam for him from my own experience of launching the first serious Bitcoin casino and coming to the rational, purely cost-based determination that there was no way to make enough money from opening it to Americans to let me avoid the likely consequences of that if the feds decided to treat Bitcoin as currency and go for me, which I now know they would have. I determined I could probably pull $10M in a year, but it wouldn't be nearly enough. I'd need to have at least $50M to have a chance. But this is the thought process you can probably project upon SBF running a flash crash, not the "too small to worry about" idea. $10M of misplaced money is right in the ballpark for someone a little stupid who's considering running for the islands.

Re: Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

#197
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you are waaaay off the exchange just shuts down your port for the day.

Interestingly the Tokyo Stock Exchange did not countermand an order from Mizuho in 2005 which flipped order quantity and price in yen, a rather catastrophic thing to do when the intended trade was one share for about 600,000 yen. Regulators were… not pleased. (Quick English summary of incident: https://www.foxnews.com/story/typing-error-causes-225m-loss-... )

US exchanges tend to either bust or price-adjust clearly erroneous trades retroactively.

That is good for unsophisticated customers, but it creates a disincentive for market makers to provide liquidity when there is a fat finger event. That in turn leads to larger price dislocations on such events.

(The reason is that the market maker faces adverse selection. Providing liquidity is a bet from the market maker that the price dislocation will revert. Price adjustment reduces the profit the market maker makes from mean reversion. But if the price dislocation was caused by a real news, the market maker will eat the full losses.)

Post reply on HN