71–80 of 226 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, same. Sorkin says he won't hold back.
This is a huge red flag. Bankman-Fried is acting like the fix is already in. I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until they slam the iron bars closed behind him.
As said earlier he has bribed the right big fish. But ignoring angry medium fish can be a problem. Also those might not be bribes. It might be a way to launder money into campaign contributions. Not that you really need that in the US now.
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?
Which set of supposed regulators approved this purchase? Find them. Investigate them.
“The fact that an offshore hedge fund that was basically a crypto firm was buying a stake in a tiny bank for multiples of its stated book value should have raised massive red flags for the F.D.I.C., state regulators and the Federal Reserve,” said Camden Fine, a bank industry consultant who used to head the Independent Community Bankers of America. “It’s just astonishing that all of this got approved.”
So much for regulators/regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While I have little confidence in the average NYT reader I think people need to be able to make up their own minds, and Sam has an important and relevant perspective which we should be able to take into account, even if he might frame it in a way that makes him look good
He got a degree from MIT, did a year at Jane Street, but is unable to keep basic financial records??? This doesn't make sense to me, and seems like obvious fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When he is, his actions weren't violent If you steal $10 from a local shop (sorry, $1000 in California now) you'll be in jail before the end of the week. Steal $1,000,000,000 eight times over and you.. get to speak at a NYT conference? I don't know, I just want some consistency from the justice system. That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really.
I believe that stealing from financial systems should be less harshly punished than stealing directly from people, small businesses etc. Whole point of financial system is risk management, while corner shop owners should not deal with theft risk at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
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?
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
Alex Jones isn't dangerous. He's just a weird guy who likes to rant about stuff. Sam Bankman Fried is a thief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.