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

FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 226 posts

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#91

Post by samtho »

kyrra wrote: post #55

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.

Not discounting any of the stuff that FTX has done or will come to light, but this practice of supporting “both sides” is a very common, by-the-book strategy for any special interest group or organization looking to buy influence and is flushed with money.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#93

Post by treis »

VagueMag wrote: post #54
lazide wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cite? If so, that's amazingly dumb.

This was one of many admissions in his text exchange with Vox. You can see an example wire here https://twitter.com/EventLongShort/status/159346927091841434...

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Customers sent him dollars to buy crypto. So any dollars that came in were almost immediately turned into crypto. The only way for those crypto assets to be missing is if the crypto was transferred.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#94

Post by notahacker »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
MichaelCollins wrote: post #44

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.

Yeah. I see SBF coming up with some sort of self-exculpatory bullshit to a fairly hostile line of questioning; something unlikely to hurt anyone other than maybe SBF

I don't see him excusing himself by explaining that regulators aren't real, they're just actors playing a role in an evil New World Order conspiracy to take people's guns away, and if he does, I don't see the NYT Dealbook summit attendees being the sort of people that turn up on their doorsteps as a result. And FTX is far too dead for him to harm people's wallets any further by persuading them to park their money in it.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#95

Post by graeme »

I looked into this. They used to do business as Geniome Bank, and their job ads are for "crypto and marijuana". Almost no publicity, though they sponsored a few marijuana events.

Chalopin usually shies away from press, so his personal involvement is odd. His son is also the chief digital officer of the company.

Another curiosity is the old Farmington team is still there, including the presdient, and they still appear to be making agricultural loans, same as they've done for ~150 years.

The Geniome/Moonstone operations appear to be based out of Seattle. Another curiosity not mentioned in this article is that Noah Perlman, COO of Gemini, is on the board of directors along with Chalopin.

"Geniome" is the trademark of a UK based company also owned by Deltec/Chalopin: IFSG. So, Chalopin has an unusal degree of personal involvement here.

Deltec previously invested in a small bank for money laundering purposes, so that could have been what they were going after here, but the amounts seem small. Could have been part of a larger plan which collapsed with FTX.

They're scrubbing employee Linkedin's now.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#96

Post by throwaway09223 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23
fisherjeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

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.

This is true of basically every public figure.

I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#97

Post by jzmorganchase »

kyrra wrote: post #55

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.

Pretty wild but I worked with the other executive here Ryan Salame at a different company before he worked at Alameda/FTX a few year ago. He was a fairly junior so it's sort of surreal to see that he became co-CEO and had enough liquid wealth to be donating $20m+ for political campaigns.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#98

Post by gumby »

sschueller wrote: post #2

My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.

He's being interviewed by Sorkin so even if FTX hadn't crashed, it would have been as interesting* and enlightening as SBF's interview with Levine. It will be even better now, and I will enjoy reading the transcript.

* TBH my only interest in the whole things is Schadenfreude, like checking out a car crash in the street. The sector is so tiny that even if FTX brings the whole thing down it'll be a largely invisible ripple on a macro scale.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#99

Post by VagueMag »

treis wrote: post #93
VagueMag wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was one of many admissions in his text exchange with Vox. You can see an example wire here https://twitter.com/EventLongShort/status/159346927091841434...

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Customers sent him dollars to buy crypto. So any dollars that came in were almost immediately turned into crypto. The only way for those crypto assets to be missing is if the crypto was transferred.

The dollars were used to purchase a claim on crypto payable by the exchange FTX. But it is not at all clear at this point that if someone sent money to them ("them" being some kind of quantum superposition of FTX and Alameda Research) and used it to purchase Bitcoin on the exchange, that FTX ever did anything other than update a number in their internal customer-facing ledgers. They had only $639,000 in Bitcoin on their balance sheet in their bankruptcy filing. And obviously the crypto is not all sitting at FTX ready to meet customer withdrawals or they would never have paused them in the first place.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#100

Post by gumby »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23
fisherjeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.

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.

It's an interview not a talk (see my other comment)
Post reply on HN