Binance and FTX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SBF parents are two Stanford economics professors. What what they think of all this?

Same for the parents of his girlfriend Caroline Ellison. Her father is dean of economics at MIT. Have also heard her mother apparently is also a professor there.

Crypto chatter is that SBF's mother has reached out to Gary Gensler, chair of the SEC, to negotiate a deal for her son. She is a law professor at Standford who set up a super PAC, Mind the Gap, which raises money for Deomocratic campaigns.

Gensler was an economics professor at MIT and, so, in a sense Ellison's father was his boss.

Must be nice to have mom and dad like that.

SBF should get life time imprisonment like Madoff.

How do these people even manage to stay alive? I don't think most people who lost several mil would have a problem with this guy being taken out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing the question of whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin are a worthwhile store of value or investment with what happened with FTX.

You can buy or sell crypto without an exchange as it was down in the earlier years of bitcoin and you can store it offline on a hard drive that you guard like a bar of gold.

An exchange, however, makes it much easier to buy and sell and, in principle, you don't have to worry about safeguarding the bitcoin you buy there because the exchange safeguards it for you. In highly regulated exchange arrangements, this safeguarding is generally done through an arrangement with a highly regulated bank or broker dealer.

This did not happen with FTX because, as an exchange, it was very lightly regulated and it, not a bank or broker dealer, was the custodian of customer assets. The owners of the exchange lent customer assets to a struggling trading affiliate, which immediately lost them on their bets and could not recover sufficiently to return the customer assets to the exchange.

The problem here is what the owners of the exchange did with customers' cryptoassets, not the cryptoassets themselves. It is a repeat of a crime we have seen over and over again over the decades in which a trustee pilfers the assets they are supposed to be protecting.

Whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin et al are worthwhile stores of value or investments is a completely separate question, the answers to which shed no light on what happened in the FTX blow up, which just as well could have involved stocks, or foreign currencies, or pork bellies.

If you believe it does, you will miss the real lessons of FTX.

In other words, THEFT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing the question of whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin are a worthwhile store of value or investment with what happened with FTX.

You can buy or sell crypto without an exchange as it was down in the earlier years of bitcoin and you can store it offline on a hard drive that you guard like a bar of gold.

An exchange, however, makes it much easier to buy and sell and, in principle, you don't have to worry about safeguarding the bitcoin you buy there because the exchange safeguards it for you. In highly regulated exchange arrangements, this safeguarding is generally done through an arrangement with a highly regulated bank or broker dealer.

This did not happen with FTX because, as an exchange, it was very lightly regulated and it, not a bank or broker dealer, was the custodian of customer assets. The owners of the exchange lent customer assets to a struggling trading affiliate, which immediately lost them on their bets and could not recover sufficiently to return the customer assets to the exchange.

The problem here is what the owners of the exchange did with customers' cryptoassets, not the cryptoassets themselves. It is a repeat of a crime we have seen over and over again over the decades in which a trustee pilfers the assets they are supposed to be protecting.

Whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin et al are worthwhile stores of value or investments is a completely separate question, the answers to which shed no light on what happened in the FTX blow up, which just as well could have involved stocks, or foreign currencies, or pork bellies.

If you believe it does, you will miss the real lessons of FTX.

When you opened an account with FTX part of the contract agreement is that your personal assets could be loaned out. I doubt many people read the opening contract documents. This part of the contract is available on line.

PP here, I stand corrected, so not theft, stupidity! My employer offered a new retirement vehicle and in the very fine print it said that funds in these accounts would be considered assets of the company….guess who did not opt in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing the question of whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin are a worthwhile store of value or investment with what happened with FTX.

You can buy or sell crypto without an exchange as it was down in the earlier years of bitcoin and you can store it offline on a hard drive that you guard like a bar of gold.

An exchange, however, makes it much easier to buy and sell and, in principle, you don't have to worry about safeguarding the bitcoin you buy there because the exchange safeguards it for you. In highly regulated exchange arrangements, this safeguarding is generally done through an arrangement with a highly regulated bank or broker dealer.

This did not happen with FTX because, as an exchange, it was very lightly regulated and it, not a bank or broker dealer, was the custodian of customer assets. The owners of the exchange lent customer assets to a struggling trading affiliate, which immediately lost them on their bets and could not recover sufficiently to return the customer assets to the exchange.

The problem here is what the owners of the exchange did with customers' cryptoassets, not the cryptoassets themselves. It is a repeat of a crime we have seen over and over again over the decades in which a trustee pilfers the assets they are supposed to be protecting.

Whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin et al are worthwhile stores of value or investments is a completely separate question, the answers to which shed no light on what happened in the FTX blow up, which just as well could have involved stocks, or foreign currencies, or pork bellies.

If you believe it does, you will miss the real lessons of FTX.

When you opened an account with FTX part of the contract agreement is that your personal assets could be loaned out. I doubt many people read the opening contract documents. This part of the contract is available on line.

PP here, I stand corrected, so not theft, stupidity! My employer offered a new retirement vehicle and in the very fine print it said that funds in these accounts would be considered assets of the company….guess who did not opt in!

Can you point to the language link? In some cases assets can be lent out, but only with the knowledge and consent of the owner. I recall language in which FTX assured customers, their assets belonged solely to them. which would imply no lending without the owner's consent.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster about the terms of service. It appears that if you had an individual account the funds could not be borrowed but if you had a "stake" then the funds could be.

https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FTX_Terms_of_Service.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster about the terms of service. It appears that if you had an individual account the funds could not be borrowed but if you had a "stake" then the funds could be.

https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FTX_Terms_of_Service.pdf

I cannot get to the link. Am wondering if with ownership of an FTT token you gave FTX the right to lend your assets. Many individual account assets were lent out, so the earlier assessment of theft seems right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster about the terms of service. It appears that if you had an individual account the funds could not be borrowed but if you had a "stake" then the funds could be.

https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FTX_Terms_of_Service.pdf

I cannot get to the link. Am wondering if with ownership of an FTT token you gave FTX the right to lend your assets. Many individual account assets were lent out, so the earlier assessment of theft seems right.

Ah ha, I’m the theft poster. So I was right..may be. Thanks for letting me know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SBF parents are two Stanford economics professors. What what they think of all this?

Same for the parents of his girlfriend Caroline Ellison. Her father is dean of economics at MIT. Have also heard her mother apparently is also a professor there.

Crypto chatter is that SBF's mother has reached out to Gary Gensler, chair of the SEC, to negotiate a deal for her son. She is a law professor at Standford who set up a super PAC, Mind the Gap, which raises money for Deomocratic campaigns.

Gensler was an economics professor at MIT and, so, in a sense Ellison's father was his boss.

Must be nice to have mom and dad like that.

SBF should get life time imprisonment like Madoff.

That's far too kind. He should get the chair.

[Anonymous]

Who here has lost money?

[Anonymous]

Read his Vox interview he did a couple of days ago through text messaging. Insightful into this thinking.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been skeptical about Crypto from the get-go and never touched it.

I still don’t get it. Why is it worth anything?

I remember derivatives in 2008-09 or whenever that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been skeptical about Crypto from the get-go and never touched it.

I still don’t get it. Why is it worth anything?

I remember derivatives in 2008-09 or whenever that happened.

Crypto and blockchain and web3 have no value whatsoever. If you want a decent easy read about how stupid it all is, check this book out:
https://www.amazon.com/Attack-50-Foot-Blockchain-Contracts-ebook/dp/B073CPP581

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing the question of whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin are a worthwhile store of value or investment with what happened with FTX.

You can buy or sell crypto without an exchange as it was down in the earlier years of bitcoin and you can store it offline on a hard drive that you guard like a bar of gold.

An exchange, however, makes it much easier to buy and sell and, in principle, you don't have to worry about safeguarding the bitcoin you buy there because the exchange safeguards it for you. In highly regulated exchange arrangements, this safeguarding is generally done through an arrangement with a highly regulated bank or broker dealer.

This did not happen with FTX because, as an exchange, it was very lightly regulated and it, not a bank or broker dealer, was the custodian of customer assets. The owners of the exchange lent customer assets to a struggling trading affiliate, which immediately lost them on their bets and could not recover sufficiently to return the customer assets to the exchange.

The problem here is what the owners of the exchange did with customers' cryptoassets, not the cryptoassets themselves. It is a repeat of a crime we have seen over and over again over the decades in which a trustee pilfers the assets they are supposed to be protecting.

Whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin et al are worthwhile stores of value or investments is a completely separate question, the answers to which shed no light on what happened in the FTX blow up, which just as well could have involved stocks, or foreign currencies, or pork bellies.

If you believe it does, you will miss the real lessons of FTX.

When you opened an account with FTX part of the contract agreement is that your personal assets could be loaned out. I doubt many people read the opening contract documents. This part of the contract is available on line.

PP here, I stand corrected, so not theft, stupidity! My employer offered a new retirement vehicle and in the very fine print it said that funds in these accounts would be considered assets of the company….guess who did not opt in!

Can you point to the language link? In some cases assets can be lent out, but only with the knowledge and consent of the owner. I recall language in which FTX assured customers, their assets belonged solely to them. which would imply no lending without the owner's consent.

They were a crypto 'bank' The whole business plan was to make money and pay interest by loaning deposits. What should be obvious is that deregulated fractional reserve banking does not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been skeptical about Crypto from the get-go and never touched it.

I still don’t get it. Why is it worth anything?

I remember derivatives in 2008-09 or whenever that happened.

Derivatives were and continue to be an important financial product.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing the question of whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin are a worthwhile store of value or investment with what happened with FTX.

You can buy or sell crypto without an exchange as it was down in the earlier years of bitcoin and you can store it offline on a hard drive that you guard like a bar of gold.

An exchange, however, makes it much easier to buy and sell and, in principle, you don't have to worry about safeguarding the bitcoin you buy there because the exchange safeguards it for you. In highly regulated exchange arrangements, this safeguarding is generally done through an arrangement with a highly regulated bank or broker dealer.

This did not happen with FTX because, as an exchange, it was very lightly regulated and it, not a bank or broker dealer, was the custodian of customer assets. The owners of the exchange lent customer assets to a struggling trading affiliate, which immediately lost them on their bets and could not recover sufficiently to return the customer assets to the exchange.

The problem here is what the owners of the exchange did with customers' cryptoassets, not the cryptoassets themselves. It is a repeat of a crime we have seen over and over again over the decades in which a trustee pilfers the assets they are supposed to be protecting.

Whether decentralized cryptoassets like bitcoin et al are worthwhile stores of value or investments is a completely separate question, the answers to which shed no light on what happened in the FTX blow up, which just as well could have involved stocks, or foreign currencies, or pork bellies.

If you believe it does, you will miss the real lessons of FTX.

When you opened an account with FTX part of the contract agreement is that your personal assets could be loaned out. I doubt many people read the opening contract documents. This part of the contract is available on line.

PP here, I stand corrected, so not theft, stupidity! My employer offered a new retirement vehicle and in the very fine print it said that funds in these accounts would be considered assets of the company….guess who did not opt in!

Can you point to the language link? In some cases assets can be lent out, but only with the knowledge and consent of the owner. I recall language in which FTX assured customers, their assets belonged solely to them. which would imply no lending without the owner's consent.

They were a crypto 'bank' The whole business plan was to make money and pay interest by loaning deposits. What should be obvious is that deregulated fractional reserve banking does not work.

Crypto has no advantages over current systems except if you are a criminal.