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

71–75 of 75 posts

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

#71

Post by bb88 »

seanhunter wrote: post #63
bb88 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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]

But that is/was the cryptobros argument: Code is Law! And now instead of fixing the algos they're going right to suing each other just like TradFi with TradLaw.

Crypto is the future!

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

#72

Post by godelski »

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…

I've had a similar complaint about publishing in machine learning conferences. They're putting in these "no LLM" rules but those are just idiotic. Proving LLM usage is really really difficult, but (one of) the underlying problem has always been bad reviews, or low quality reviews. So why write a LLM rule? Why not tackle the problem more directly?

I don't care if people use LLMs, I care about generating slop. The two correlate, but by concentrating on the LLM part you just let the problem continue. It's extremely frustrating. Slop is slop. Doesn't matter how it is generated or by who. Slop is slop. Doesn't matter if you dress it up and put lipstick on a pig. Slop is slop.

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

#73

Post by bb88 »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #67
bb88 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I personally like the emdash -- I've been using for years -- I'm not an AI -- And I will continue to use it in the future with the "(not ai)" annotation. I will fight for the freedom -- for me and for others -- to use the emdash however I please.

I thought "Code is Law". So now crypto bros want to fight this out in TradLaw just like the TradFi institutions do?

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

#74

Post by furryrain »

johnnycakes wrote: post #39
furryrain wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article links to https://x.com/InvestWithD/status/2026381475776692426 which purportedly quotes a Jane Street insider that after pausing BTC activity, they expect BTC will go up. I personally don't understand how any of this works.

The tweet used as the source is a troll. That guy uses the "I just got off the phone with..." template all the time to joke/troll about things going on in markets.

Ah, what a world.

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

#75

Post by elcritch »

whatshisface wrote: post #70
elcritch wrote: post #69

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. 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 w…

> 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.

Copyright laws should be applied to LLMs and their users just like any others. If they verbatim reproduce a post (or near enough), then it should be a copyright violation.

> You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post.

There's nothing inherently wrong with humans or LLMs learning to mimic someones style. This is actually a basis for styles and genres, etc. Whole trends in arts are just people copying others style's. Sometimes with little improvements.

> 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.

How exactly is this different than what Hollywood did pre-LLMs for the last decade or two? LLMs didn't cause the homogenization of culture. Corporate Hollywood and the internet did that.

Post reply on HN