Anonymous wrote:I totally don't understand any of this no matter how much I read about it, but what interests me is reading that celebrities like Tom Brady and wife, Steph Curry, Shohei Ohtanai, and even Mark Zuckerburg will or already have lost billions in this. Who else?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is probably a Bernie Madoff situation. I think we now know why SBF and his deputies donated nearly $70M to PACs this election cycle.
The effective altruism piece on him by Sequoia was hilarious
https://archive.ph/2022.11.10-160906/https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlight/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is probably a Bernie Madoff situation. I think we now know why SBF and his deputies donated nearly $70M to PACs this election cycle.
The effective altruism piece on him by Sequoia was hilarious
https://archive.ph/2022.11.10-160906/https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlight/
Anonymous wrote:I told my friend who was keeping his crypto at FTX ("because the US FTX isn't affected by this") to get it out earlier this week. He didn't. He just messaged me that his account shows he has ZERO. It's all gone.
Help me out here - why do the same people who don't trust government think that giving your money to an unregulated bunch of kids is better?
Anonymous wrote:I told my friend who was keeping his crypto at FTX ("because the US FTX isn't affected by this") to get it out earlier this week. He didn't. He just messaged me that his account shows he has ZERO. It's all gone.
Help me out here - why do the same people who don't trust government think that giving your money to an unregulated bunch of kids is better?
Anonymous wrote:This is probably a Bernie Madoff situation. I think we now know why SBF and his deputies donated nearly $70M to PACs this election cycle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm not into the crypto scene and am fascinated to see that much of the drama/manipulation/crimes are related to the platform companies and not the digital currencies themselves.
Illegal? These are not banks and are almost completely unregulated. I don't know what it was take for some to be prosecuted as a crime.
Agree, and my work prohibits any ownership of crypto. Bitcoin's proof of work mechanism ensures its integrity. Etherium has shifted to proof of stake to satisfy the climate change crowd but it remains to be seen if that could be manipulated.
Lightly regulated platforms dealing with other people's money were a problem waiting to happen.
FTX was lending customer assets (an exchange should be safekeeping customer assets, not lending them) to a connected company, Alameda (compounding the egregiousness of the lending), that Alameda collateralized with its holdings of tokens FTX itself had issued (ensuring that a drop in the token's value would leave FTX unable financially to give its customers their assets back).
The FTX implosion has nothing to do with the digital assets themselves, but has everything to do with a financial firm that avoided all principles of good governance and risk management.
The claim that the FTX collapse has nothing to do with the digital assets themselves is wrong. FTX Token was a key part of this collapse.
I would differentiate FTT, the FTX tokens, from digital assets like bitcoin and etherium. FTT was a token issued by FTX that gave holders a share in FTX's profit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm not into the crypto scene and am fascinated to see that much of the drama/manipulation/crimes are related to the platform companies and not the digital currencies themselves.
Illegal? These are not banks and are almost completely unregulated. I don't know what it was take for some to be prosecuted as a crime.
Agree, and my work prohibits any ownership of crypto. Bitcoin's proof of work mechanism ensures its integrity. Etherium has shifted to proof of stake to satisfy the climate change crowd but it remains to be seen if that could be manipulated.
Lightly regulated platforms dealing with other people's money were a problem waiting to happen.
FTX was lending customer assets (an exchange should be safekeeping customer assets, not lending them) to a connected company, Alameda (compounding the egregiousness of the lending), that Alameda collateralized with its holdings of tokens FTX itself had issued (ensuring that a drop in the token's value would leave FTX unable financially to give its customers their assets back).
The FTX implosion has nothing to do with the digital assets themselves, but has everything to do with a financial firm that avoided all principles of good governance and risk management.
The claim that the FTX collapse has nothing to do with the digital assets themselves is wrong. FTX Token was a key part of this collapse.