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

Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

disruptionbanking.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#61

Post by duskwuff »

wzdd wrote: post #51
tzs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I probably didn't notice them because they don't seem at all unnatural.

Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in. Goes to how little attention we pay normally, and/or how much weight we put on text seeming natural. "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." -- the purpose of a lawsuit is to question something (by making an allegation), you…

> Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in.

It's as if they're optimizing for all the surface-level indicators of well-formed, meaningful thought, without the actual substance to back that up.

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#62

Post by tim333 »

>On May 7, 2022, Terraform Labs withdrew 150 million TerraUSD from the Curve3pool without any public announcement. Within 10 minutes, a wallet allegedly linked to Jane Street withdrew an additional 85 million TerraUSD...

I thought the whole idea of crypto is that everything is public on the blockchain. Presumably anyone could have seen the $150m withdrawal and reacted? It doesn't seem very insider information.

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#63

Post by seanhunter »

bb88 wrote: post #58
bsder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a non-paywalled link? archive.is seems to be having issues today.

I have the newsletter in email and there wasn't much more than what was posted above, other than quoting from this article: https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... That point was the crux of Matt Levine's argument: Terra and Luna were unregulated and easy-to-game securities. So you can't complain when the smartest people on Wall Street figured out how to pop the balloon in their favor -- (not…

“Can’t complain” doesn’t make it legal. I had this argument a number of times with cryptobros at the time “if it’s on the chain it’s fair game” I heard quite often. Just, no. Just because some code allows you to get away with something doesn’t make it not illegal[1].

The thing is you or I don’t get to say what is or isn’t a market that is covered by market abuse laws. Regulators do, and while it’s true to say none of the relevant regulators had stepped up and conclusively shown these markets were under their jurisdiction, they had repeatedly said they were looking into them and given hints they felt they had jurisdiction. Heck, I was in a meeting with Kevin Warsh around 2014 or so[2] where he asked about bitcoin so it’s clear the fed was at least looking into crypto at that time long before they made public comment. ISTR talking to the cftc at the same time and they asked about it too.

So “unregulated” in this context doesn’t mean “not covered by regulation” it means “regulatory status extremely uncertain”. If you want to go in with a very aggressive strategy you’re taking some risk that regulators will post facto go after you because they do that a lot in conventional markets.

[1] Market abuse in this case, but it’s obviously the case in cybersecurity also.

[2] This isn’t some kind of weird boast btw, cbankers and regulators meet with people from industry all the time as part of their normal information-gathering process and he met with a group of us who were working with some bank on detecting things like market abuse. He had some sort of academic position at Stanford at the time iirc looking into various types of bank regulation, but he was still plugged into the fed governors because he had only just left that.

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#64

Post by rowanG077 »

tim333 wrote: post #62

>On May 7, 2022, Terraform Labs withdrew 150 million TerraUSD from the Curve3pool without any public announcement. Within 10 minutes, a wallet allegedly linked to Jane Street withdrew an additional 85 million TerraUSD... I thought the whole idea of crypto is that everything is public on the blockchain. Presumably anyone could have seen the $150m withdrawal and reacted? It doesn't seem very insider information.

I guess the insider information is knowing who the wallet belongs to?

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#65

Post by pawelduda »

wmf wrote: post #56
fn-mote wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to connect this to the market or the article. I certainly don’t believe Jane Street is keeping crypto down somehow. What kind of non-conspiracy theory are you proposing?

I suspect this theory is cope from people who missed the top.

I bet that's the case. Crypto bros need a villain to justify being trigger-happy top buyers flooded by greed every time. Jane Street is particularly useful to KoLs who have been shilling crypto all the way down from the top. There is already strong confirmation bias from everyone yapping "See? You lost moniez because of market manipulation! I'm a successful trader (here is my paid substack and exchange reflink)"

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#67

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

bb88 wrote: post #60
int32_64 wrote: post #22

Didn't many of the FTX cronies come from Jane Street? So many of the biggest fraudsters in crypto came from tradfi and their scams were discovered because they picked the one asset class where being unable to process withdrawals implies a 100% chance of fraud. It makes you wonder how much fraud occurs in tradfi but it goes undiscovered because nobody can self-custody their paper metals or paper stocks.

What do you want? Regulated or unregulated securities? You can't invest in unregulated FTX and then whine when they went and lost all your money -- (not ai emdash) because it was -- wait for it -- UNREGULATED!

That's not how this works. Unregulated markets are not a free for all. Law still apply in the absence of a regulator.

Also, unrelated minor pet peeve, but what's the deal with the "not ai emdash"? You can just use dash or comma, you know.

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#69

Post by elcritch »

godelski wrote: post #42
Infernal wrote: post #3

Is there an article about this written by a human? The “it’s not X. It’s Y” is too distracting.

For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. There's no hard evidence here, just hearsay. Nothing really to report until there's more information. I don't want drama in reporting, I want facts. But I guess I'm an outlier which is how we got both this AI style and the clickbait it was trained on...…

> For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles.

Yes! You put your finger on what bugs me about "no LLM" rules. It's not that LLMs writing isn't uniquely bad, but that it tends towards low quality clickbaity prone writing we already see everywhere. Banning LLM content is redundant.

Side note, I'd guess LLMs don't tend towards vapid writing just because of clickbaity training material. Rather it's more fundamental. Writing well takes effort and energy. LLMs seem to avoid effort just like humans. Emotional based reasoning in humans is itself a heuristic system favored by evolution. Thinking is expensive. Emotional slop is cheap.

Re: Jane Street Hit with Terra $40B Insider Trading Suit

#70

Post by whatshisface »

elcritch wrote: post #69
godelski wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. There's no hard evidence here, just hearsay. Nothing really to report until there's more information. I don't want drama in reporting, I want facts. But I guess I'm an outlier which is how we got both this AI style and the clickbait it was trained on...…

> For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. Yes! You put your finger on what bugs me about "no LLM" rules. It's not that LLMs writing isn't uniquely bad, but that it tends towards low quality clickbaity prone writing we already see everywhere. Banning LLM content is redundant. Side note, I'd gue…

Here's why no LLM rules make sense:

Imagine you know a guy named Patel. He pirated every movie ever made and is a prolific writer. So prolific, in fact, that he has a blog, called "Patel's Log." On this blog is a review of every movie ever made.

At first, you think that's neat. It's not exactly a book of all knowledge, but it's a significant human achievement, perhaps even historic.

Things take a turn for the worse when you're reading a review in the Times. You recognize Patel's distinctive style, and call him up to ask if the Times stole his post. He says that a Times columnist asked for his opinion, and he sent them a link. It turns out the columnist copied his blog post verbatim: but he says he can't complain without being inconsistent, since he pirated every movie ever made.

You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post. Eventually you're disappointed when the Ebert staff publish an opinion piece in favor of Patel's Log matching (PatelLM), and you're forced to wonder if that' what Ebert would have thought.

Your boss sends you copy-pasted PatelLM content in a morning Slack message about a movie she watched over the weekend. Your friends quote Patel's Log verbatim on Discord. Hollywood starts using PatelLM to indirectly plagiarize other movies. Soon, Patel's posts begin to echo each other as the supply of novel perspectives is overwhelmed by PatelLM. Film criticism become a dessicated corpse, filled with plastic and presented in a glass case with a pin through its heart. Thought is dead. There is only Patel.

Post reply on HN