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

FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 226 posts

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#51

Post by lazide »

VagueMag wrote: post #48
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for. I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional finance a few months ago?

He signed up customers with documented agreements saying that their funds would be segregated and not lent out, and then he used the U.S. banking system's wire infrastructure to have their money sent directly to his hedge fund Alameda Research instead of the exchange FTX.

Cite? If so, that's amazingly dumb.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#53

Post by senthil_rajasek »

fisherjeff wrote: post #7
sschueller wrote: post #2

My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

A congressional commitee hearing would accomplish it.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#54

Post by VagueMag »

lazide wrote: post #51
VagueMag wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He signed up customers with documented agreements saying that their funds would be segregated and not lent out, and then he used the U.S. banking system's wire infrastructure to have their money sent directly to his hedge fund Alameda Research instead of the exchange FTX.

Cite? If so, that's amazingly dumb.

This was one of many admissions in his text exchange with Vox. You can see an example wire here https://twitter.com/EventLongShort/status/159346927091841434...

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#55

Post by kyrra »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon...

FTX and it's executives donated $70 million to politicians as well (in the last 18 months). SBF donated $40MM to Democrats, and a different executive donated $23MM to Republicans.

They were trying to buy all kinds of influence.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #44
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my view that he hasn't been charged or convicted, it is an objective fact. What is the definition of violence? > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

> What is the definition of violence? You've already conceded that words can hurt people (Alex Jones), so why are you trying to backpedal that now?

> words can hurt people (Alex Jones)

Equating money losses with violence dilutes the term, and has a history of slipping into hurt feelings and blasphemy being tantamount to violence. There are crimes which may rise to the severity of violence. That doesn’t make them violence. Alex Jones incited violent. He, himself, was never violent. SBF perpetuated a massive fraud. He has not been connected with any violence.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

siftrics wrote: post #31

Which set of supposed regulators approved this purchase? Find them. Investigate them.

> Which set of supposed regulators approved this purchase

I would bet none. This looks like an illegal transfer of control. If shown, that gives us the thread with which to finally topple Tether.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#58

Post by actionablefiber »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23
fisherjeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.

Is that true? I have to think that the average attendee of the New York Times's DealBook summit is probably going to be fairly high-information. I don't think the "average person" will even know about this conference much less care enough to watch the speeches.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#59

Post by treis »

lazide wrote: post #50
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for. I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional finance a few months ago?

He admitted to using client funds against the stated TOS. Embezzlement, Fraud, whatever - a crime did occur, regardless of if it was crypto, and every country I've run across has laws against that. Untangling how to charge him, and where, and digging up concrete enough evidence to file an indictment is going to take awhile of course. The post-bankruptcy CEO seems to be finding plenty. As with a lot of non-violent cri…

What he's admitted to are loose financial controls and by the letter of the law it's not illegal to be bad at your job. Obviously no one really believes his "whoopsie poopsie accidentally lost a few billion" story but technically he hasn't yet admitted to a crime.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#60

Post by justincredible »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #44
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my view that he hasn't been charged or convicted, it is an objective fact. What is the definition of violence? > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

> What is the definition of violence? You've already conceded that words can hurt people (Alex Jones), so why are you trying to backpedal that now?

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN