Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) debacle with FTX (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

I mean the problem with crypto is there's always going to be someplace in the world where these companies can setup and defraud folks. It might be Isle of Man next time or Comoros,

Comoros
Country in East Africa

The Comoros is a volcanic archipelago off Africa’s east coast, in the warm Indian Ocean waters of the Mozambique Channel. The nation state’s largest island, Grande Comore (Ngazidja) is ringed by beaches and old lava from active Mt. Karthala volcano. Around the port and medina in the capital, Moroni, are carved doors and a white colonnaded mosque, the Ancienne Mosquée du Vendredi, recalling the islands’ Arab heritage. ― Google


Figured I wasn't the only one. Also has a very pretty flag

 

[Neo]

I learned a long time ago that you need to assume anything you write in email, text, etc....can be shared so only put in writing what you are comfortable with anyone seeing. This guy is enemy number one right now, what did he think would hapoen?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

They straight up never even recorded deposits on a balance sheet. That sure seems like they never even had any intent of paying people back. If you didn’t record who was giving you what, that shows no intent of ever repaying it.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

I think part of my confusion is from believing crypto is basically a Ponzi scheme to begin with. What we’re asking here is if this a Ponzi scheme on top of a Ponzi scheme.

 

[culdeus]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

It's a little different than madoff. In a lot of ways people held their money with FTX like it was a bank, thought it was safe in a bank. He turned around and used the deposits as collateral, or to help mark their positions both of which are regulated in the retail banking space in the US. Madoff did this underneath the US retail banking space regulations.

I think you can argue money people put into FTX was not likely to be wiped out on overleveraged positions in a hedge fund they didn't knew existed. At least with Madoff there was a prospectus.

 

[Dickies]

This is Bernie Madoff 2.0, the Gen Z version. A lot of people are going to get hurt but in the process, new regulations and compliance measures will spring forth and hopefully we all learn some hard lessons.

It's going to happen again in the future with the advent of new ideas, technology and opportunities to take advantage of investors eager to make a profit. Greed is always ripe for criminals to take advantage of since the dawn of man. And make no mistake, that's what this "genius" is - a criminal who took advantage of investor's hunger for a quick buck.

Ponzi schemes don't fade away, they just evolve.

I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner with crypto. Who wouldn’t want to give their money who looks like Blutarski?

There are hundreds if not thousands of crypto ponzi schemes that have come and gone. Obviously none have been on this scale.

 

[massraider]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/01...i=oWt_hH0jTBuidNXsYbVHaA&utm_source=copy-link
Podcast with Matt Levine on the FTX. He was the Bloomberg guy who asked SBF in the summer to describe yield farming, and SBF said it was a magic box that money came from.

 

[Sammy3469]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

It's a little different than madoff. In a lot of ways people held their money with FTX like it was a bank, thought it was safe in a bank. He turned around and used the deposits as collateral, or to help mark their positions both of which are regulated in the retail banking space in the US. Madoff did this underneath the US retail banking space regulations.

I think you can argue money people put into FTX was not likely to be wiped out on overleveraged positions in a hedge fund they didn't knew existed. At least with Madoff there was a prospectus.

They do have a customer agreement and while I haven't read their's, most of these off-shore places where anything is lent and or transferred to some stablecoin, whelp you've basically signed away your rights to your asset for whatever asset they have as collateral for the loan. In the current Celsius litigation, Celsius is currently saying in court that any customer who used margin, lending, etc. whelp good luck, you are at the end of the creditors and their contracting with the customer says as much. Yes these exchanges are taking advantage of people, but people also don't read what's in front of them.

 

[Zasada]

This is a separate question but related. I'm interested in the ethics of the reporter from Vox making the conversation public.

She's within her rights as a journalist as Bankman-Fried did not declare the conversation to be off the record.

But clearly, no one in their right mind would say what he said knowing it would be public.

He said that today. https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1593014934207881218?s=20&t=OTjPeTWFVVgIvr353m4SSw

25) Last night I talked to a friend of mine. They published my messages. Those were not intended to be public, but I guess they are now.

Wondering what folks thought about the reporter making this public. Not whether it's legal or not (it clearly is as he didn't say it was off the record), but ethically.

I'm in a role which sometimes requires that I speak with the media. One of the reporters who covers my industry is a friend, and this is where I think there's some merit to SBF's lament of a "friend" publishing the DM conversation.

I say things about my job/company/industry to my reporter-friend that I wouldn't want published. But I also don't open my conversations with him that what I'm saying is off the record. Could he burn me? Sure. But there's an expectation that our conversations are off the record unless specifically arranged as an interview by our comms department (which does happen with this friend).

So if SBF sincerely has a (mutual) friendship with this reporter, I think his beef has some merit. But if this is just one of a handful of interactions, he should know that any conversation with a reporter needs to open with "this is off the record" if that's the intent.

My two cents.

 

[dickey moe]

Re: regulation, I thought a large part of the allure of crypto is its apparent inherent ability to bypass/avoid the tendrils of government regulation. Seems like that is a risk that has not been adequately accounted for by the speculators, no?

 

[Dickies]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

He was describing “yield farming” which you’ll never convince me is not a ponzi. Crypto exchanges are entirely different and should not be ponzis, but if we’ve learned from experience they aren’t exactly trustworthy.

 

[Dickies]

This is a separate question but related. I'm interested in the ethics of the reporter from Vox making the conversation public.

She's within her rights as a journalist as Bankman-Fried did not declare the conversation to be off the record.

But clearly, no one in their right mind would say what he said knowing it would be public.

He said that today. https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1593014934207881218?s=20&t=OTjPeTWFVVgIvr353m4SSw

25) Last night I talked to a friend of mine. They published my messages. Those were not intended to be public, but I guess they are now.

Wondering what folks thought about the reporter making this public. Not whether it's legal or not (it clearly is as he didn't say it was off the record), but ethically.

I'm in a role which sometimes requires that I speak with the media. One of the reporters who covers my industry is a friend, and this is where I think there's some merit to SBF's lament of a "friend" publishing the DM conversation.

I say things about my job/company/industry to my reporter-friend that I wouldn't want published. But I also don't open my conversations with him that what I'm saying is off the record. Could he burn me? Sure. But there's an expectation that our conversations are off the record unless specifically arranged as an interview by our comms department (which does happen with this friend).

So if SBF sincerely has a (mutual) friendship with this reporter, I think his beef has some merit. But if this is just one of a handful of interactions, he should know that any conversation with a reporter needs to open with "this is off the record" if that's the intent.

My two cents.

Now imagine you stole $23B and casually talk about it with your reporter friend. Would you still expect your relationship with your reporter friend to remain the same?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Re: regulation, I thought a large part of the allure of crypto is its apparent inherent ability to bypass/avoid the tendrils of government regulation. Seems like that is a risk that has not been adequately accounted for by the speculators, no?

Exactly. A large part of the real world value right now is in its utility in funding illegal activities. Shocker that such a market would be rife with fraud.

 

[General Malaise]

I never understood anything about it

There's two distinct things. There is the original technology, which is interesting and may have some utility. Completely theoretical.

Then there's the scammy, speculative, money laundering nonsense that it is in its current form.

There’s also a big difference between crypto currencies and crypto currency exchanges. Crypto currencies are mostly worthless as their utility is still pretty limited and there’s still no good way for them to have high utility for the average person right now. But there’s potential there and as long as the currency doesn’t go away, there’s still some potential value.

Exchanges allow folks to buy and sell crypto currencies or even fractional shares, but like the stock market, you don’t ever hold the actual currency. The obvious danger in that is that the exchanges have zero regulation and these big exchanges keep stealing everyone’s money and folding (see Mt Gox).

If this whole thing isn't Toto pulling back the curtain, I don't know what will be.

Take a bitcoin. It is a currency which is, in the simplest terms, a medium used to exchange value. Thing is, you can barely use it to exchange value. It's not like you can walk into your local 7/11 and buy a pack of gum with it. First of all, we already have plenty of currencies with much higher utility. They're all backed by nations and work within each nation. Some, like the US dollar, can even be used quite easily in many foreign countries as an exchange of value. So, you have bitcoin and other crypto, which has just a fraction of a percent of the utility as existing currencies, why would anyone use it? They don't. Yes, it has a way of tracking everyone who ever owned it (sorta), but really, when I want a pack of gum, do I care that the Sultan of Brunei once owned this dollar 7 years ago, or do I care that it buys me a pack of gum? On top of this, the lack of regulation has created a situation where the entire crypto space is absolutely flooded with scams, from ponzi schemes, to rug pulls, and to outright theft/hacks. Additionally, many cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin) burn up tons of energy to "mine". Like, using more energy than most nations. Humans are literally burning coal to run machines doing cryptologic calculations to find the next bitcoin. Why put up with all of that for a low utility store of value? And beyond that, why put up with all of that AND decide that it's worth somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 times the value of a dollar? The dollar is much more useful to the user, and it's not even close. The real true value of a bitcoin is probably a fraction of a penny. Everything else built into its price is nothing but speculation and irrational exuberance.

It's nonsense. I can't remember the exact quote but I agree with Warren Buffet who said something like, "If someone offered me all of the cryptocurrency in the world for $20, I'd turn them down."

If I could, I'd like this post 100 times. Excellent, Hulk.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I don't understand why this is a question. I can't conjure up any reason why it wouldn't be ok to publish.

Maybe that he claims it was meant to be private and off the record? https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1593014934207881218?s=20&t=XzEOoXWxwgFTSuvUgKpQFw

Last night I talked to a friend of mine. They published my messages. Those were not intended to be public, but I guess they are now.

I can easily not see not believing him or not thinking that's a good reason. But it doesn't seem difficult to "conjure up" why someone might question it.

Doesn’t matter. It’s not off the record unless the subject states that it is before saying what they say.

 

[General Malaise]

I mean the problem with crypto is there's always going to be someplace in the world where these companies can setup and defraud folks. It might be Isle of Man next time or Comoros,

Comoros
Country in East Africa

The Comoros is a volcanic archipelago off Africa’s east coast, in the warm Indian Ocean waters of the Mozambique Channel. The nation state’s largest island, Grande Comore (Ngazidja) is ringed by beaches and old lava from active Mt. Karthala volcano. Around the port and medina in the capital, Moroni, are carved doors and a white colonnaded mosque, the Ancienne Mosquée du Vendredi, recalling the islands’ Arab heritage. ― Google


Figured I wasn't the only one. Also has a very pretty flag

Isn't this the Island nation Jerry donated funds to through Kramer to try and impress Elaine which led to an audit from the IRS?

 

[Sand]

Ten 20 somethings with no business experience high on adderall running a multi billion dollar business.

How could this have gone wrong. Did the investors in FTX do any DD?

Apparently they were also all in a polyamorous relationship with each other. I have no problem with polyamory, but when it comes to making effective business decisions, I think that sort of relationship amongst all of the decision makers would be suboptimal.

I have to chuckle at the thought of little head decisions being "suboptimal." They're usually way worse than that.

 

[General Malaise]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

It's a little different than madoff. In a lot of ways people held their money with FTX like it was a bank, thought it was safe in a bank. He turned around and used the deposits as collateral, or to help mark their positions both of which are regulated in the retail banking space in the US. Madoff did this underneath the US retail banking space regulations.

I think you can argue money people put into FTX was not likely to be wiped out on overleveraged positions in a hedge fund they didn't knew existed. At least with Madoff there was a prospectus.

Well, and Madoff had cache and looked the part. I mean, he was the Chairman of NASDAQ for crying out loud. He had a solid body of work to earn investors before he became a crook.

Sam looks and acts like a drummer/pizza delivery guy and sounds like what I'd envision a Minecraft character to sound like.

 

[General Malaise]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

He was describing “yield farming” which you’ll never convince me is not a ponzi. Crypto exchanges are entirely different and should not be ponzis, but if we’ve learned from experience they aren’t exactly trustworthy.

Right, I'm referring to the video K4 posted yesterday where what he described was exactly a Ponzi scheme.

I agree that Crypto exchanges should NOT be Ponzis, but there's no doubt this guy was using his empire nefariously. I mean, he was taking money out as 'loans' to himself and his friends. I know what that's called. That's called "stealing".

 

[Redwes25]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

There is no doubt this was pure theft.

 

[(HULK)]

For the ponzi scheme vs theft call.

It's theft. This wasn't a situation where you gave him money to invest. FTX was supposed to be much closer to a savings account, and in the terms of use said they don't touch the coins/tokens you store with them. Except they did, regularly, and then lost all of them. It's theft.

 

[Boston]

I learned a long time ago that you need to assume anything you write in email, text, etc....can be shared so only put in writing what you are comfortable with anyone seeing. This guy is enemy number one right now, what did he think would hapoen?

There was an old pol in Boston who said…” Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”.

 

[Dickies]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

He was describing “yield farming” which you’ll never convince me is not a ponzi. Crypto exchanges are entirely different and should not be ponzis, but if we’ve learned from experience they aren’t exactly trustworthy.

Right, I'm referring to the video K4 posted yesterday where what he described was exactly a Ponzi scheme.

I agree that Crypto exchanges should NOT be Ponzis, but there's no doubt this guy was using his empire nefariously. I mean, he was taking money out as 'loans' to himself and his friends. I know what that's called. That's called "stealing".

I know, I am also referring to that video. He is describing "yield farming" which is basically creating a crypto currency, getting people to buy into it to create a pool of "assets" backing them, then pay returns to those that keep their crypto "staked". The returns are usually paid in additional coins/tokens so as time goes on either the value of the coin/token deflates as additional supply is created, or new deposits/demand continually prop it up. Once the new deposits dry up, the whole thing collapses. Usually the creators of these coins rug pull the whole thing once they see the new deposits start to slow.

 

[Dickies]

For the ponzi scheme vs theft call.

It's theft. This wasn't a situation where you gave him money to invest. FTX was supposed to be much closer to a savings account, and in the terms of use said they don't touch the coins/tokens you store with them. Except they did, regularly, and then lost all of them. It's theft.

The fact that they didn't even keep records of the depositors' holdings is mind boggling.

 

[Sand]

I’m having trouble understanding how much of this was malicious and how much was incompetence. I’m leaning more to the latter but, again, I’m uncertain.

He literally described his investment as a Ponzi Scheme. On the record. His words. Before the house of cards fell. And there is confusion over whether this was maliciousness or incompetence? They didn't have audited financials. My god...that's not a "whoops, we forgot". That's flat out giving the investment world the finger and there is going to be a LOT to answer going forward. From regulators, investors, counter parties.....


This guy is a criminal. A no doubt about it, modern day Bernie Madoff. He admitted it.

He was describing “yield farming” which you’ll never convince me is not a ponzi. Crypto exchanges are entirely different and should not be ponzis, but if we’ve learned from experience they aren’t exactly trustworthy.

Right, I'm referring to the video K4 posted yesterday where what he described was exactly a Ponzi scheme.

I agree that Crypto exchanges should NOT be Ponzis, but there's no doubt this guy was using his empire nefariously. I mean, he was taking money out as 'loans' to himself and his friends. I know what that's called. That's called "stealing".

What harm is a 1B dollar personal loan amongst friends?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the ponzi scheme vs theft call.

It's theft. This wasn't a situation where you gave him money to invest. FTX was supposed to be much closer to a savings account, and in the terms of use said they don't touch the coins/tokens you store with them. Except they did, regularly, and then lost all of them. It's theft.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering why people kept calling this a Ponzi scheme. It seems a lot more like just straight-up theft/fraud. It doesn't even rise to the same level of sophistication as a Ponzi scheme unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm in a role which sometimes requires that I speak with the media. One of the reporters who covers my industry is a friend, and this is where I think there's some merit to SBF's lament of a "friend" publishing the DM conversation.

I say things about my job/company/industry to my reporter-friend that I wouldn't want published. But I also don't open my conversations with him that what I'm saying is off the record. Could he burn me? Sure. But there's an expectation that our conversations are off the record unless specifically arranged as an interview by our comms department (which does happen with this friend).

So if SBF sincerely has a (mutual) friendship with this reporter, I think his beef has some merit. But if this is just one of a handful of interactions, he should know that any conversation with a reporter needs to open with "this is off the record" if that's the intent.

My two cents.

 

[The Z Machine]

Re: regulation, I thought a large part of the allure of crypto is its apparent inherent ability to bypass/avoid the tendrils of government regulation. Seems like that is a risk that has not been adequately accounted for by the speculators, no?

Uh, and it's not a great feature IMO. It means that a lot of people will get defrauded out of a lot of real money without much recourse to prevent that from happening. I don't see any way that the benefits of a blockchain currency outweigh the probability that some entity dealing with your money in said currency just won't abscond or vanish with your wealth. No thanks. I'll buy an SP500 tracker fund on Vanguard.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I say things about my job/company/industry to my reporter-friend that I wouldn't want published. But I also don't open my conversations with him that what I'm saying is off the record. Could he burn me? Sure. But there's an expectation that our conversations are off the record unless specifically arranged as an interview by our comms department (which does happen with this friend).

I would rethink that, GB. Not saying you can't be friends with a reporter that covers you/your company, but if you're gonna communicate stuff that you don't want made public, it's best for you and especially your company if you let it be known that it's off the record. It doesn't even need to be awkward, all you have to do is preface it with something like "Hey, this doesn't go beyond us, ok? But..."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It doesn't even need to be awkward, all you have to do is preface it with something like "Hey, this doesn't go beyond us, ok? But..."

100% this. If you talk to a journalist on something of public interest you better make it clear it's off the record. If you're famous or doing something in the public spotlight, that's 100% of the time.

 

[Sand]

For the ponzi scheme vs theft call.

It's theft. This wasn't a situation where you gave him money to invest. FTX was supposed to be much closer to a savings account, and in the terms of use said they don't touch the coins/tokens you store with them. Except they did, regularly, and then lost all of them. It's theft.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering why people kept calling this a Ponzi scheme. It seems a lot more like just straight-up theft/fraud. It doesn't even rise to the same level of sophistication as a Ponzi scheme unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible.

What's even more frustrating is that this was an insanely profitable enterprise. There were staggering sums being traded and they charged trading fees on all of it. If they had just run a straight up business this whole mess was easily avoided and they would have stayed bazillionaires.

 

[The Z Machine]

If they had just run a straight up business this whole mess was easily avoided and they would have stayed bazillionaires.

I don't think they knew how to do that. Like no idea on how to set things up properly and too much hubris to ask adults to help them.

 

[Sammy3469]

For the ponzi scheme vs theft call.

It's theft. This wasn't a situation where you gave him money to invest. FTX was supposed to be much closer to a savings account, and in the terms of use said they don't touch the coins/tokens you store with them. Except they did, regularly, and then lost all of them. It's theft.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering why people kept calling this a Ponzi scheme. It seems a lot more like just straight-up theft/fraud. It doesn't even rise to the same level of sophistication as a Ponzi scheme unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible.

The Ponzi is that (I'm guessing here) most of these customers signed documents effectively saying if you want to do anything past simple trading (ie yield farming, cross collaterization, etc.), FTX could effectively use deposited assets as it saw fit and replace it with similarly valued collateral (in this case FTT coins). People believed these tokens (which were generally generating more earning/tokens for the customers) until the entire thing unrivaled. The whole offshore industry is built on that concept (ie give us your assets and we promise you'll get them back...fingers crossed-behind our back).

More directly, most anytime customers are depositing coins on one of these offshore exchanges, they are effectively loaning the exchange the coins to do with what they want. The contracts with customer's set up that construction. This is how the Celsius liquidation is playing out with Celsius saying the customer deposits are loans to us and those customers are at the end of the line in liquidation...we'll see if the courts believe that argument. I haven't seen FTX's contracts to know if they've similarly covered themselves (but suspect they have) which I'm guessing will be one of FTX's defenses. Something along the lines..."It can't be theft if customer's knowingly loaned those coins to us. Yeah our controls are ****, we loaned those coins to ourselves, and we lost the coins, but that's not illegal."

Or maybe the better way of saying this, is these aren't cash accounts at a US broker-dealer where they have to segregate your funds and securities and can't use them for their own benefit. This isn't even a margin account at a US broker-dealer, but more akin to someone giving a $100 loan to their 10 year in a Dave n Buster's and expecting him to give you the $100 after being their for 2 hours and being disappointed when he give you back $1.00 in trinkets.

 

[Zasada]

I say things about my job/company/industry to my reporter-friend that I wouldn't want published. But I also don't open my conversations with him that what I'm saying is off the record. Could he burn me? Sure. But there's an expectation that our conversations are off the record unless specifically arranged as an interview by our comms department (which does happen with this friend).

I would rethink that, GB. Not saying you can't be friends with a reporter that covers you/your company, but if you're gonna communicate stuff that you don't want made public, it's best for you and especially your company if you let it be known that it's off the record. It doesn't even need to be awkward, all you have to do is preface it with something like "Hey, this doesn't go beyond us, ok? But..."

Do I then have to open every conversation with my friend that way? If I'm complaining about having a bad day because [xyz at work]?

I guess the unspoken calculus I'm doing in my head is something along the lines of "is what I'm telling my friend important enough that he would be willing to blow up our friendship in order to get a bunch of clicks on his article"?

So yeah, if I was telling him about some big cover-up that had huge public interest, I'd probably open with a "hey this is off the record". Most likely is that I wouldn't tell him at all, in fact. Unless I needed to be an activist. But all that is not my point.

You're absolutely right that in order to protect myself and my company, *any* time I discuss work should come with the "off the record" request. But Joe's question was more about SBF's expectation of that status in this case. My opinion is that if you have a true friendship with a reporter, there is some unspoken expectation of "off the record unless said otherwise". Where as non-friend reporters, the expectation should be the reverse.

Is SBF to blame for saying things to a reporter that ended-up published? Sure.

But if the question is actually, "is the reporter a jerk for reporting said conversation", my answer is "it depends". And, as I said, if they had a true friendship, then yes, the reporter is a jerk.

 

[culdeus]

FTX: Worse Than Enron!

Sign up for Blinkist using this link: blinkist.com/patrickboyleThe new chief executive of FTX, an insolvency professional who oversaw the liquidation of Enro...

youtu.be

New Patrick Boyle on the updates this week.

 

[Instinctive]

I don't have much to say about SBF, nor do I know him, but I can say his dad remains one of my favorite professors ever. Tax law professor, took multiple classes with him, just an awesome, really funny and thoughtful person. Sucks that this is happening in his family.

 

[massraider]

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2...base-loses-a-wall-street-bull-on-ftx-fallout/

Bank of America wants you to know they are confident that Coinbase isn't another FTX, but just in case, no longer a buy.

 

[massraider]

Article from Yahoo Finance wih a post-mortem, but links to a really interesting story from Yahoo Finance a August '21.

Questioning the business

 

[thecatch]

I don't have much to say about SBF, nor do I know him, but I can say his dad remains one of my favorite professors ever. Tax law professor, took multiple classes with him, just an awesome, really funny and thoughtful person. Sucks that this is happening in his family.

Hard to believe that a child of a couple of accomplished lawyers would make some of the statements he’s making.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

My opinion is that if you have a true friendship with a reporter, there is some unspoken expectation of "off the record unless said otherwise". Where as non-friend reporters, the expectation should be the reverse.

I can understand that, but I guess a lot hinges on what the definition of "true friendship" is. In my case, I'd be more likely to rely the "unspoken expectation" if we were friends before our current reporter-source dynamic existed, but not if it didn't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't have much to say about SBF, nor do I know him, but I can say his dad remains one of my favorite professors ever. Tax law professor, took multiple classes with him, just an awesome, really funny and thoughtful person. Sucks that this is happening in his family.

Hard to believe that a child of a couple of accomplished lawyers would make some of the statements he’s making.

It really is unreal. If you wrote a script like this, it would get ripped for being too implausible to maintain the audiences suspension of disbelief.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

With the backdrop of his commitment to "altruism" and the polyamorous billionaire playhouse in the Bahamas, for some reason his interviews and tweets make me think of this quote from the Big Chill.

 

[Insomniac]

I learned a long time ago that you need to assume anything you write in email, text, etc....can be shared so only put in writing what you are comfortable with anyone seeing. This guy is enemy number one right now, what did he think would hapoen?

There was an old pol in Boston who said…” Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”.

I thought the quote ended with "Never carry a pen".

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ringer Dictionary. https://www.theringer.com/national-...bankman-fried-alameda-research-crypto-scandal

Including more talk on the Emsam stuff some had asked about.

 

[massraider]

Sam Bankman-Fried’s businesses owe more than $3bn to their largest creditors, according to court filings, as the cryptocurrency group’s huge bankruptcy process gets under way. The crypto exchange FTX and linked companies founded by Bankman-Fried filed a list of their 50 largest creditors on Sunday, all of which are customers and owed more than $20mn, with two of them due more than $200mn. The companies’ total liabilities are estimated at more than $10bn, according to earlier filings, and it may have more than 1mn creditors.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

 

[[scooter]]

They straight up never even recorded deposits on a balance sheet. That sure seems like they never even had any intent of paying people back. If you didn’t record who was giving you what, that shows no intent of ever repaying it.

Were investors able to access their deposits, make withdrawals, etc.?

 

[The Z Machine]

This was more like selling gold mining claims where there is no gold than a ponzi scheme.

 

[Todem]

For those keeping score:

Madoff - 64 Billion
FTX - 32ish Billion

Madoff still the biggest ponzi on record….but after all the dust settles with the crypto casinos…..”Crypto” itself will prove to be the biggest destruction of peoples/funds/firms wealth in our history.

More is coming.

 

[krista4]

@Joe Bryant , I was looking for your answer in the public poll and didn't see it. I'm wondering what your vote was? Apologies if I missed it, which is totally possible.

 

[KGB]

Not sure why anyone cares about if the reporter should be allowed to share.

How do you short? Lol