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

We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 440 posts

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#291

Post by eddsh1994 »

bhouston wrote: post #266
eddsh1994 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I called it and saw many others call it too. Cause a run on FTX, get due diligence and say it’s F**ed, and get their user-base for free. My concern is how much funding FTX and SBF in particular were giving to EA/AGI Safety research labs and charities. There’s going to be some significant knock on effects there when the money is no longer available.

> AGI Safety research labs If they are not part of a university, it is probably pretty sketchy anyhow.

They fund a huge number of serious initiatives in the space via EA funds - 9, maybe 10 figures.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#292

Post by beambot »

chii wrote: post #254
panarky wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling with customers' funds works great for you when you win, and bad for your customers when you lose.

and this is why banks are not allowed to use customer deposits for such activities. And if they do, they must have equity value to back it up - aka, the bank's share holders lose value _first_ when shit hits the fan, before customer deposits. Then lastly, the gov't has put up guarantees on the deposits in case bank equity cannot cover customer deposits when shit hits the fan. Crypto has none of the above - so basical…

1800s? Let me tell you about quantitative easing and sub-prime mortgage backed securities...

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#293

Post by jakeinspace »

beambot wrote: post #292
chii wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and this is why banks are not allowed to use customer deposits for such activities. And if they do, they must have equity value to back it up - aka, the bank's share holders lose value _first_ when shit hits the fan, before customer deposits. Then lastly, the gov't has put up guarantees on the deposits in case bank equity cannot cover customer deposits when shit hits the fan. Crypto has none of the above - so basical…

1800s? Let me tell you about quantitative easing and sub-prime mortgage backed securities...

But depositors didn’t lose their money.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#294

Post by amluto »

SilasX wrote: post #152
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

In the thick of it, illiquidity and insolvency blur. But not after the fact. As usual, Levine put it best: “the problem is not a timing mismatch, in which FTX’s customers asked for their cash back but FTX did not have enough ready cash because it had long-term but money-good loans out. The problem is that FTX took its customers’ money and traded it for a pile of magic beans, and now the beans are worthless and there’…

That’s why I hate when people in these discussions refer to needing/providing “liquidity”. It feels like such a weasel word. Unless you know enough to conclude it’s really a cash flow mismatch, then don’t mince words or overcomplicate it. Money. They need some g/d m/fing money. Maybe they need it as arms-length loans on legitimately illiquid capital. Maybe they need underpriced loans for the risk of the business. May…

This is somewhere between a gross oversimplification and wrong. Sure, most problems can be solved by “money” — if someone just gave FTX $10bn in the form of a wire, they’d probably be fine. But this misses the point.

If a bank holds short term debt, due in one week, but a customer is withdrawing funds now, the bank needs liquidity — they need dollars today, and all they have is dollars next week. If a dealer owes a customer 500 BTC that they’re trying to withdraw today, they need liquid Bitcoins, not money. There are many ways a financial company can fail, and lumping them all together as “money” loses all nuance and understanding.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#295

Post by jjitz »

Nathanba wrote: post #238
nu11ptr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTX was #2 globally. Binance is #1. I'm not sure exactly what ranking mechanism is used to determine that, but that seems to be consensus from a variety of sources.

I've never even heard of FTX and I've been in the crypto space for many years. Binance however was always near the top since it came out. There was one american exchange that used to be nr.1 but became irrelevant after they weren't allowed to serve non-americans anymore. I can't remember the name and it isn't in the top 300 anymore, maybe they had to shut down. EDIT: I just checked and FTX was only founded 3 years ag…

I hate to gatekeep, but I find it pretty impossible that you are "in the crypto space" in any meaningful sense but somehow have not heard of FTX. That's like being "in the crypto space" but not knowing what Ethereum is.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#296

Post by csomar »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #273
miohtama wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your smell comment. I am a nerd with bad hygiene, but people do not bring it up that often. Binance pegged USD is not printed out of thin air. It is a bridged token from Ethereum to other blockchains. Because how smart contracts work, Binance cannot manipulate Binance pegged USD supply unless they seriously break BNB Chain. You can verify the reserves and bridges here: https://www.binance.com/en/assets-…

"The reason why Paxos do not directly issue tokens on other chains is that they 1) likely do not have infrastructure for it yet 2) they are limited by commercial agreements or agreements with a regulator." Yet ? We are talking multiple tens of Billions of $ and supposedly they don't have infrastructure YET ? I don't know anything about the coin itself, but all of this sure smells like the small print that some will f…

Ethereum is the standard for ERC-20 Tokens. It's not hard to get a TRC-20 (Tron) token up and running, but a more careful company might not consider it.

> Yet ? We are talking multiple tens of Billions of $ and supposedly they don't have infrastructure YET ?

These up billions of $$ of customers money which they make a kind of commission on. The commission is not going to be billions but rather millions; and crypto/blockchain infrastructure/developers are very expensive.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#297

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

tim333 wrote: post #232
rippercushions wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if crypto tokens are intrinsically worthless!

Though that's not really the issue here. Obviously they were worth something to the people buying and selling them.

Not really.

If I buy and sell a coin from myself with monopoly money for ever increasing prices - is it really worth anything?

Obviously there are some inflows into crypto. But it's about 0.00001% of the daily volume.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#298

Post by jl2718 »

memish wrote: post #276
pseudosavant wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTX going under due to magic beans reminds me so much of Lehman Brothers going under in 2008. That time the magic beans were "mortgage backed securities" that somehow took low-quality debt, mixed it up with some magic, and out came high-quality debt, only it didn't.

Get ready to have your mind blown. Watch this https://twitter.com/HaloCrypto/status/1590417311839981569

I was once surprised to learn that, in some cultures, dishonesty is regarded as a skill. After all these years, I’m starting to see their point.

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#299

Post by coffeebeqn »

netheril96 wrote: post #275
melenaboija wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Binance goes, crypto isn't coming back Interesting statement for a decentralized asset

It’s interesting because it is wrong. MtGox had far larger dominance in crypto trading than Binance, flopped significantly, and it didn’t prevent crypto from coming back.

In dollar amounts it was a tiny tiny exchange though

Re: We will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX

#300

Post by jcpham2 »

jjitz wrote: post #295
Nathanba wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never even heard of FTX and I've been in the crypto space for many years. Binance however was always near the top since it came out. There was one american exchange that used to be nr.1 but became irrelevant after they weren't allowed to serve non-americans anymore. I can't remember the name and it isn't in the top 300 anymore, maybe they had to shut down. EDIT: I just checked and FTX was only founded 3 years ag…

I hate to gatekeep, but I find it pretty impossible that you are "in the crypto space" in any meaningful sense but somehow have not heard of FTX. That's like being "in the crypto space" but not knowing what Ethereum is.

Unfortunately I can echo the crypto space sentiment for as long as such an expression can exist

I’ve never touched Bitfinex/FTX/Binance or any exchange that allows options or leverage. I am a US citizen. Bitstamp Gemini or Coinbase are the only ones I’ll touch

And I’m pissed off that coinbase removed the BTC/USDC trading pair because it had low volume

Why will I not touch them? That’s a long story but I see history repeating itself - fractional reserve Bitcoin banks paying ponzi interest

Post reply on HN