Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is "it's not X. It's Y"? I didn't notice it.
The negative parallelism pattern is broader than the literal phrasing "not X, but Y". Here are some examples from the article: - "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." - "Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade." - "It reads less like a rescue offer and more like a firm positioning itself..." - "These are not isolated; they are part of Snyder’s broade…
Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
41–50 of 75 posts
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#42Is there an article about this written by a human? The “it’s not X. It’s Y” is too distracting.
It also doesn't help that all the title graphics have the same dramatic feeling and are certainly AI generated.
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#4310mins is a lifetime in capital and crypto markets - I find it hard to believe that trading 10mins after the Terraform Labs swap hit the chain constitutes insider trading. The claim of artificial price inflation with Jump sounds more questionable but TFA doesn’t seem to put it front and centre
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#4410mins is a lifetime in capital and crypto markets - I find it hard to believe that trading 10mins after the Terraform Labs swap hit the chain constitutes insider trading. The claim of artificial price inflation with Jump sounds more questionable but TFA doesn’t seem to put it front and centre
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#45Is there an article about this written by a human? The “it’s not X. It’s Y” is too distracting.
AI is turning the entire web into LinkedIn itisnotaboutism.
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#46This is about a crypto transaction leading to the Terra/Luna collapse. If there is one benefit coming from crypto is that it explains clearly why finance is a regulated industry.
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#47Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#48I remember this in the news, but I had to look stuff up on Wikipedia to refresh my memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_(blockchain) > The Anchor Protocol was a lending and borrowing protocol built on the Terra chain. Investors who deposited UST in the Anchor Protocol were receiving a 19.45% yield paid out from Terra's reserves. What the fuck?
How do you create a stablecoin? There are two ways in general. One is to have it backed 1:1 with a bank account somewhere that contains the actual currency it represents. In theory you then allow people to freely exchange back and forth between tokens and dollars. Tether kinda/sort works this way in theory.
The other way is to play games with algorithms and try to use the market against itself to create stability. Terra (UST) attempted to do this by running a complex scheme that leveraged a floating backing token, Luna, and a smart contract which allowed you to exchange 1 UST for $1 worth of newly created Luna. If UST starts to lose its peg and become worth less than a dollar, people buy it to exchange for $1 worth of Luna, sell the Luna for a profit, so arbitrage sorts the price out. If it becomes worth more than a dollar, you buy Luna, burn it to convert to new UST, then sell that for a profit, adding sell pressure and diluting the supply.
Even with the best will in the world systems like this could best be described as meta-stable, i.e. it'll smooth out minor perturbations but there are limits.
One major problem is how do you get Luna to be worth anything though? Well you offer inducements like a ridiculous interest rate, high enough that anyone outside the cryptocurrency bubble would immediately see a red flag, and which then has to be subsidised by ... creating more tokens.
Eventually the limit was discovered, Luna dumped massively and the whole illusion collapsed.
Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#49Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit
#50The company in charge of a crypto thing made a sudden (and I assume unexpected) withdraw of $150 million.
Jane Street, who worked with them, dumped $80 million within 10 minutes.
Are we supposed to think Jane Street wasn’t supposed to be monitoring what was going on? If I was working with a bunch of crypto people who suddenly took out a ton of money without warning me, I can absolutely see wanting to pull my money before everything collapses. Crypto is volatile.
As other people pointed out, this is 10 MINUTES. You don’t need secret information to notice something happening that fast. You need dial-up. That would be plenty fast enough.
Sure if you can actually produce records where someone from TerraLabs said “we are running away, pull out quick“ fine. But even then… if they waited most of 10 minutes did they even need that information? It’s not like rug pulls are an unknown thing in crypto.
I get the lawyer wants to help his clients but unless he gets some discovery and finds something pretty damning I’m not sure there’s anything here. I was expecting to see one of those allegations where they did it within like two seconds. I can see two seconds being collusion.