- #736
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2023 Award
- 33,599
- 20,221
If FTX was so sloppy, and these investors so savvy, why did they invest in it?
And IMO the tech startup culture encourages risk taking for fear of missing out. Overall it's probably actually a winning strategy.jrmichler said:Because SBF and Elizabeth Holmes both have outstanding people skills, and used those skills to persuade otherwise sophisticated people to invest in their scams without doing due diligence.
Has she traded her black turtleneck for an orange jumpsuit yet?jrmichler said:Elizabeth Holme
The judge denied her petition to stay free during her appeal. So she reports to prison on April 27, 2023. Her partner in crime Sunny Balwani has to report a week earlier, on April 20, 2023. Article: https://apnews.com/article/elizabet...d-conviction-46471e11f615b8ce16114c22551477aaVanadium 50 said:Has she traded her black turtleneck for an orange jumpsuit yet?
Not just in crime.jrmichler said:Her partner in crime
Fair enough. But these do have a lot in common - "I don't understand it, but somehow it will make me zilions!: is not a story that usually ends well.jrmichler said:lets get back to bitcoin scams...
Bitcoin is up 80% YTD, which is a pretty decent return...jrmichler said:And now, lets get back to bitcoin scams...
From Taylor Swift's song Blank space, the chorusAstronuc said:Taylor Swift didn't sign $100 million FTX sponsorship because she was the only one to ask about unregistered securities, lawyer says!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/taylor-swift-didnt-sign-100-112618986.html
So she either saw it comingSo it's gonna be forever
Or it's gonna go down in flames
You can tell me when it's over, mm
If the high was worth the pain
Maybe SBF was one of those "ex-lovers" and let her in on a secret.Got a long list of ex-lovers
I hope not. TS has apparently had quite a few boyfriends; she certainly could to better than SBF.artis said:Maybe SBF was one of those "ex-lovers" and let her in on a secret.
Consider that she is the only one out of how many that did not sign on. It's a sad commentary on greed by those who already have more money than they could possibly spend.Astronuc said:Taylor Swift didn't sign $100 million FTX sponsorship because she was the only one to ask about unregistered securities, lawyer says!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/taylor-swift-didnt-sign-100-112618986.html
Great summary of cryptocurrency by Ben McKenzie at the FTX hearingartis said:A funny take on what crypto and NFT's really are by Ben McKenzie and Bill Maher, their interview was longer but sadly this is the longest version I could find online,
For those interested in the full interview I suggest watching the full show, a great and funny take on pressing matters , it was Real time with Bill Maher season 21 episode 11
Shouldn't this be prefaced with "Riddle me this, Caped Crusader?"russ_watters said:Why is Commissioner Gordon investigating crypto?
I think McKenzie put it best himself - to paraphrase , that the only real "appeal" for crypto apart from that given to it by youngsters , adventure seekers and paid celebrities is the idea of getting away from a government controlled centralized/monitored currency.Astronuc said:Ben McKenzie on CNN - My interpretation of McKenzie's comments: Cryptocurrencies are not currencies - they are unregistered, unlicensed securities, but based on a fictional narrative, i.e., they constitute a fraud.
My take - There is real money invested with the hope that crypto will amount to some equity in some investment. It's not clear how many crypto investors successfully recovered real currency when FTX collapsed. I suspect SBF put the real money in some real bank, and in exchange for the real money, SBF/FTX issued an 'unregistered security', which of course is worth less than the real money invested by many others, if there is any worth at all.
Vanadium 50 said:If they have a half-decent lawyer looking at their prospectus before sending it out, I don't see how this can be fraud. It should say "we hope it will go up, but it might go down - way, way down" in fancy legal talk. Then they're covered.
Their legal position seems much better than Theranos', since they don't have a product, so how can the product not work?
I think this point is often missed. If an investor buys crypto believing it will go up, he's buying it from someone who believes it will go down. Two sides to every trade.artis said:What if the crypto value went up?
And that is I believe why Ben McKenzie says its the biggest Ponzi scheme in history , because the sellers claim their product/currency has more value than it actually has but in order for them to extract any value they have to eventually "create" the value and they can only do this by an ever growing number of clients,Vanadium 50 said:When the people selling it are also the people saying it will go up, that should set off alarm bells.
,and the bank accounts for most of those that participate...BWV said:it’s negative sum given the environmental impact and opportunity cost of the resources employed in mining,
SBF says US is criminalizing acts of dishonesty
One of the memos supporting Bankman-Fried's motion to dismiss repeatedly paints the FTX founder as being perhaps guilty of lying, but not guilty of violating US laws cited in his indictment.
That memo, for example, concedes that Bankman-Fried and co-conspirators lied on a US bank application to open an account to receive FTX customer deposits after the bank had previously rejected an honest application. But just because the bank "was deprived of the opportunity to conduct 'enhanced due diligence' and executive committee review before opening the account," that doesn't mean that Bankman-Fried committed bank fraud, his lawyers argued. To find him guilty of bank fraud, the US would have to prove that Bankman-Fried either deprived the bank of “moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities” or caused banks to risk suffering "economic harm" from losing the "right to control" access to its bank accounts, lawyers argued.
The same argument, lawyers wrote, applies to allegations that "Bankman-Fried engaged in a scheme to defraud Alameda’s lenders by providing them false and misleading information regarding Alameda’s financial condition" or wire fraud allegations that he "misused FTX customer funds by providing improper loans to Alameda."
"Simply making a false statement, by itself, does not constitute wire fraud unless it is made for the purpose of obtaining money or property from the victim of the fraud," Bankman-Fried's lawyers wrote..
Since when are crimes illegal? "pound the table"gmax137 said:Lol, reminds me of, "what does "is" mean?"