601–610 of 886 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"SBF was a major Dem donor, so no investigation" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591822387267665921
Quoted post unavailable.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/10/ftx-crypt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a generic case. Parent is describing a specific case in which prisoners determine they have a 95% chance they will be convicted. Given such a case, parent's argument follows logically. How many cases the Fed prosecutes or convicts is irrelevant to the scenario.
Yes, in this scenario the prisoners assume the Feds are going to bring a case in eventually. This, I believe, tracks the real-world situation, because this case is already notable enough that the government is determined to see it through, however long it takes to prepare. But even if not, then have the prisoners multiply that 95% by whatever they believe is the chance Feds will eventually prosecute. Is it 50/50? Tha…
Crucially, these particular prisoners have a very good idea of whether the Feds have enough evidence to go to trial (assuming the Feds get everything, which is probably prudent to assume). Especially with the advice of good council, which they apparently can afford.
> Note that prisoners won't be unbiased here - the Feds will be trying to make them believe this chance is much higher than it really is.
Which is mitigated by the advice of council. Of course, there is a chance that they are influenced too far in the opposite direction - their layers may be banking on raking in fees from going to trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t seen any evidence Alameda itself committed any crime, only that they were terrible traders and lost many billions on margin through FTX, who gave them special treatment for collateral. SBF then tried to bail them out with FTX customer funds since he owned both. I think Ellison will get off scot free since she only controlled Alameda, and not entirely. Her crimes are probably minor and worth forgiving for he…
I think you grossly underestimate the amount of regulation Caroline is subject to. At the very least she will be deemed unfit or proper, which means she will be barred from any financial activity for the years to come. On top of that, as a MOO & RO she will be professionally and personally liable to millions in fines, and most likely jail time. Negligence _is_ a crime, a lack of means _is_ a crime, a lack of knowledg…
I’m not saying she’s fully innocent, maybe there’s some incriminating text messages or something, but from the public information so far it doesn’t seem cut and dry to convict her of a serious crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People here love to hate the press for some reason.
No, sadly there is a decidedly right-wing mind virus around how SBF is treated with kid gloves because he heavily donated to democrats. Ignoring that he also donated to Republicans. This is all part of that narrative - substantiated or otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that everything’s a conspiracy, it’s that everything is corrupt. Our whole system is from top to bottom. The PR and public statements are almost never the private statements or full story. Even with all the corruption, sometimes the optics are a bridge too far, even for the connected.
> It’s not that everything’s a conspiracy, it’s that everything is corrupt. No, it's not, and this sentiment is what frustrates a lot of us. I'm in no way saying "the world is fair" or that money and power can't be influential, but, at least in the US, and at least for the time being, there are a lot of career law enforcement people who really just want to do a good job. Yes, these folks that do just want to do a goo…
In the US our corruption is out in the open, we enshrine our corruption into laws. Corporations have lobby groups that literally write the legislation Congress passes. If you think our system has integrity you’re just naive I’m sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about people suffering brownouts because their electricity is being stolen for mining, or people losing their shirts in ponzi schemes? What about the people and companies being extorted by ransomware? Do you say to the people who've been harmed by cryptoassets, "sorry, this is for the greater good, there are hypothetical refugees who may find this useful?"
The utilitarian slant is interesting. I can understand why some people think crypto is a net negative at the moment. The set of businesses adjacent to true, on-chain applications is rife with fraud. Thousands of people have died, maybe even millions have lost life savings. But I ask you an analogous question: what do you say to the people suffering any crime that was aided by free, encrypted communications on the int…
The right to have authority over your financial assets is just not that interesting to me. I'm largely ambivalent about people's right to hold private property (capital), if anything I oppose it. I care more about people's rights to hold personal property, like their home and the other tools they need to survive, but crypto cannot do anything to protect that because you can't put it into the blockchain.
I'm not a big lover of state power, but I have no interest in supporting the wealthy in thwarting state power. My view is that that is how cryptoassets after used in practice; as speculative assets, which is largely a shell game that transfers more wealth to the wealthy, and as a means to evade taxes, capital controls, and law enforcement.
I believe the main place we differ is that you seem to think these are necessary evils and that crypto will change for the better, and I'm pretty sure this is crypto is telling us what it is about and what it is for, and that we should listen & believe it. I think building a better society requires changing social relations by confronting them and discussing them, not by somehow transcending then through technology. Cryptoassets propose to "solve" trust by abstracting away humans and relationships, but that's just the wrong direction; trust is formed by speaking to and connecting directly with each other, not through math. In the same way locks may keep people honest but don't really stop dishonest people who are determined to gain entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange assisted with criminal activity. It would be cool to see it argued in court but somebody seems hell bent against examination.
He showed completely innocent Iraqis getting gunned down. Yup, criminal guy there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't feel bad for Blackrock/Sequoia/Softbank etc. These are professional investors, yet they invested in a finance company that didn't even have proper financial sheets. To let that slide is pure negligence, and, frankly, should put them on the hook for the monetary loss from the FTX customers.
How could these institutions be so negligient?