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

Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#81

Post by dehrmann »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #18
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #2

Also Coffeezilla's take on the interview with more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rL35_WV3lE

That video was remarkable. Apparently the guy couldn't code but worked as a trader at JS for three years. In my own head, that almost reflected worse on JS than SBF. I think everyone assumed Alameda were doing something clever. In reality, they were just idiots stealing from and front-running their customers. Lol. These moments when you see the man behind the curtain, it is just ludicrous and shakes your faith in the…

We're watching something similar possibly play out with Twitter. Musk bought it at its peak price and scared away a lot of big advertisers. In the near-term, it's not clear if he cut headcount enough to offset the loss in revenue. In the mid-term, we'll see if he can maintain its relevance. The long-term bet is he can find something to bring Twitter to 1-2B users that Twitter overlooked for 10+ years.

For someone who many see as a business genius, he's made a very questionable bet, and it's a reminder a lot of these people are more lucky than good.

Or maybe I'll be using the TwitterPay in five years to buy a Feather tablet so I can watch Vines.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#82

Post by iudqnolq »

kaashif wrote: post #79
divbzero wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who was on the other side of these losing trades? People need to follow the money trail. Where did the money go? There doesn’t have to be another side to the losses. If Alameda / FTX was holding assets that depreciate in value, they would book losses along with everyone else holding the same assets.

The point they're making, I think, is that FTX bought various shitcoins from other people in exchange for USD. Value can disappear, but that's not what happened to the actual dollars they spent. I'm not positive this whole thing was some kind of planned conspiracy, it just seems like idiocy and fraud catching up with them. I don't think any competent fraudster would get caught in such an embarrassing way.

One theory is that it was their users. That is, Alameda lost huge amounts taking the other side of trades on FTX, and then FTX stole customer money and gave it to Alameda to compensate

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#83

Post by iudqnolq »

dehrmann wrote: post #80
lolc wrote: post #8

Too smart by half, this guy just doesn't shut up. Sure plays into the narrative that he's a naive kid. But painful to listen to all the scheming in the pauses of speech.

IANAL, but you can bet a lawyer would have told him to STFU so he doesn't incriminate himself further.

Both his parents are (good!) law professors, ironically

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#84

Post by yakak »

RC_ITR wrote: post #44
TacticalCoder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FTX actually had a solvency crisis, where he took deposits, put them in completely inappropriate investments (many of which are now worthless, all of which were speculative nonsense) and is now revealed to have done that. Who was on the other side of these losing trades? People need to follow the money trail. Where did the money go? There are people who called the Alameda / FTX scam from day one, before FTX was eve…

I mean it's always easy to look for a conspiracy, but is it really so crazy to think that in a market that lost $2tn of "value" (I know crypto market caps are fake, but bear with me) that the most aggressive trader out there lost $8bn? When I say investments, I don't mean VC investments, I mean Crypto trades.

The default in finance is conspiracy, this is why it has so much regulation. There's not a managed fund on earth that doesn't have a few fund managers that go around winking at 3rd parties and discussing ways to leverage their position and the limits of what they are allowed to accept.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#85

Post by timmytokyo »

dehrmann wrote: post #80
lolc wrote: post #8

Too smart by half, this guy just doesn't shut up. Sure plays into the narrative that he's a naive kid. But painful to listen to all the scheming in the pauses of speech.

IANAL, but you can bet a lawyer would have told him to STFU so he doesn't incriminate himself further.

He's clearly playing the "I made a stupid mistake" angle to avoid being accused of deliberate fraud. He's trying to minimize the length of his jail sentence.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#89

Post by pram »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #13
sgammon wrote: post #3

The idea that a "bank run" caused this is just silly. FTX is not a bank.

> The idea that a "bank run" caused this is just silly. FTX is not a bank. Are you familiar with the adage: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one? Here is the thing, FTX may not ave been a registered bank, but it definitely functioned as a fractional reserve bank: and in the end that is what matters most! SBF is so screwed, and a part of me makes me think he wanted to implode all along: despite being born on 3r…

Tbh I think he’s talking to this specific person because he thinks she’s hot. I’m totally serious about this lol

He’s not trying to convince the world he’s not a bad guy, just her.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#90

Post by remarkEon »

iudqnolq wrote: post #82
kaashif wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point they're making, I think, is that FTX bought various shitcoins from other people in exchange for USD. Value can disappear, but that's not what happened to the actual dollars they spent. I'm not positive this whole thing was some kind of planned conspiracy, it just seems like idiocy and fraud catching up with them. I don't think any competent fraudster would get caught in such an embarrassing way.

One theory is that it was their users. That is, Alameda lost huge amounts taking the other side of trades on FTX, and then FTX stole customer money and gave it to Alameda to compensate

Given this all happened on the "block chain", wouldn't it be possible to confirm this theory?

Btw, I find this explanation compelling - I'm not challenging it necessarily.

Post reply on HN