BITCOIN, Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses

[Vanadium 50]

Are Treasuries a bad investment because of inflation? First, without goals one cannot determine whether or not a given investment advances these goals or not. That's why I keep harping on that. But also, rates are set by auction, and the bidders are organizations like the Bank of Japan and JP Morgan-Chase. Don't you think that they have more effort behind deciding what to bid than just listening to some random podcast? I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more about economics than the armies of professional economists employed by large banks and major world governments. Finally, there exist TIPS: Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities.

One hedge against inflation is foreign currency. If I have some assets denominated in CAD or EUR or JPY or whatever, if the USD falls with respect to them, they will rise in value, partially offsetting the loss in purchasing power. Does it make sense to have a warehouse in the Yukon somewhere with stacks of loonies? Not really - for the same reason it makes sense to invest in stocks and bonds in the US, it makes sense to buy stock in Samsung, Yamaha and Tim Horton's.

Circling back to crypto, one might look at "market cap" and want to make crypto a percent or so of one's portfolio. However, one cannot exercise the trick above. There is no company in Bitcoinistan I can invest in. This lack of tethering to real economic activity makes crypto more volatile and therefore risky, lowering its risk to reward level. So mosty investors - as opposed to speculators - would treat crypto market cap as a strict upper limit of what they are willing to invest. For the average American's savings of $40K, one could make the argument that around $100 should be in crypto. Maybe $200.

Beyond that, we move from rational investment to speculation. And when one's counterparties are being dragged off to prison left, right, and center, the case can sure be made that speculating on something else might be smarter.

 

[Rive]

we move from rational investment to speculation.

The full faith

Speculation on faith still can (should!) be rational

I do find it interesting that FTX's fall had very little impact on the crypto market.

There are plenty of market analysis models (the two big antagonistic and countless homebrew) in circulation, but I can't recall any (even just moderately successful) based on news and rumors .... That's just not working.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Speculation on faith still can (should!) be rational

If its based on faith, shouldn't it be transcendental?

 

[Rive]

If its based on faith, shouldn't it be transcendental?

Nah, that would work just as good as homeopathic money

Jokes aside, the whole crypto is so detached from any logical and rational expectations and limits that I can't see reason for trying anymore.
I've just recognized it as the perfect and exclusive play- and battleground for tech analysis people.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Speculation on faith still can (should!) be rational

Well, let's take a look at it. The whole idea is that "crypto will go through the roof once it finally catches on", right?

About 30% of Americans have savings accounts. That's the first investment that most people make - the rest are living paycheck to paycheck and/or paying off debt.

About 20% of Americans have or used to own crypto.

So what are the opportunities for growth?

• People who already own crypto will suddenly buy a lot more of it.
• Some of this 10% will start buying it. Fort this to increase the market more than about 50% of its present size, they need to buy a lot of it compared to the 20%.

Do either of these support a large increase in demand?

So we're left with what is called the greater fool theory. Crypto will appreciate because people who can't or won't do this simple analysis will be buying it, hoping to make a killing, so there is money to be made, provided one times their exit perfectly.

That might work, but isn't it easier and more fun to go to Vegas and gorge yourself at buffets and stare at half-naked showgirls as you gamble away your money?

 

[russ_watters]

About 30% of Americans have savings accounts. That's the first investment that most people make - the rest are living paycheck to paycheck and/or paying off debt.

I'm pretty sure that's very wrong or at least too narrow (I have a checking account but no savings account). This says 98% have at least one:

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/sa... of U.S. households,such as a savings account.

I do think the better comparison would be the fraction with a brokerage account, because that's money already set up to play with.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm pretty sure that's very wrong or at least too narrow

But I asked Google!

The same Google tells me the average is $16,000, the medial is $5000 and the total is $1T. Those seem more or less consistent with 31%. I have three savings accounts, but one is linked to my brokerage account.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, FTT has been soaring post-conviction. I am struggling to understand why. Is there any better evidence that the market is irrational? "Here is an instrument created for the very purpose to defraud its owners." "Sounds great! Gotta get me some of that!"

The general increase of crypto prices may help the FTX customers. Their claims are in USD, at a price set in November. FTX.Alameda's assets are in crypto. So the higher the price of crypto, the more dollars they have to pay back what they took.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Chapter 11 plan is out. I did not read all zillions of pages of it. However, there is a very interesting set of numbers:

$195,000,000 in political donations. This was structured in just over 1000 transactions, many just under various limits and reporting thresholds. Of this, under $500,000 has been returned.

I foresee a scandal if the recipients are identified: "I'm sorry you were swindled, but finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a good look for a politician.

 

[collinsmark]

Here's a podcast from Freakonomics Radio about Sam Bankman-Fried.

Michael Lewis got incredible access to Sam Bankman-Fried, the billionaire behind the spectacular FTX fraud. His book is a bestseller, but some critics say he went too easy on S.B.F. Lewis tells us why the critics are wrong — and what it’s like to watch your book get turned into a courtroom drama.

Link to podcast: (This is just an audio podcast, no video, and it lasts almost an hour, but it's worth a listen):
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/season-13-episode-17/

 

[Vanadium 50]

I listened to the podcast, but haven't (and probably won't) read the book, but I understand the criticism. The thing that doesn't come out is that if you run a bank - essentially what FTX was - it is wrong to take your customers' money and spend it.

It doesn't matter if you are a Big Dumb Puppy, an Effective Altruist, or The Smartest Person on Earth. It is wrong. It doesn't matter if the money is spent on beach houses, private jets, or to place people with the "right" political views in public office. It is still wrong. And it doesn't matter if you can spend that money better than its owners. It is still wrong.

 

[nsaspook]

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ah, the lovely, and oversharing Ms. Fong...

The coin twitterverse doesn't seem to understand that the coins that were stolen are gone. All that;s left are dollars, and not so many of those. That's what bankruptcy means.

To my mind, the more interesting situation was the lack of a second trial, along with the prosecutors' letter that in effect says to the judge, "go ahead and use this in sentencing". This could well be grounds for appeal - "we don't need a trial, just jump straight to passing sentence". I suspect, without evidence, that this is related to keeping the spotlight off the $195M in unreturned political contributions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Been thinking about volatility.

Firstm it is certainly possible to make money just with volatility. Suppose I have a Token, and it starts at $1, rises to $2, falls back to $1, then falls to 0.50 and back up to$1. Every period, I rebalance so half my money is in dollars and have it this token. I start with $200, and put $100 in each. The Token rises and now I have $100 in USD and $200 in the Token. So I sell $50 in Tokens, and not have $150 in each. The Tokem falls to $1, and now I have $150 and $75; rebalance and I have $112.50 in each. The Token falls further; I have $84.38 in each after rebalancing, and after the Token rises again, I sell it and have $253.13. In short, I've made 26% on my money, just through volatility. I spell it out in such painful detail so everyone can see it's not a trick.

Same thing happens if it goes down and then up. If there is an upward or downward overall trend, this works on top of that trend.

So I can make money by betting on volatility. If one treats this as a single transaction, who exactly is my counterparty? Well, if I am betting on volatility, it's people betting on stabiliy.

This means there are people who have a financial incentive to present cryptocurrencies as more stable than they are. Calling them "currencies", for example, promotes this.

 

[fluidistic]

Been thinking about volatility.

Firstm it is certainly possible to make money just with volatility. Suppose I have a Token, and it starts at $1, rises to $2, falls back to $1, then falls to 0.50 and back up to$1. Every period, I rebalance so half my money is in dollars and have it this token. I start with $200, and put $100 in each. The Token rises and now I have $100 in USD and $200 in the Token. So I sell $50 in Tokens, and not have $150 in each. The Tokem falls to $1, and now I have $150 and $75; rebalance and I have $112.50 in each. The Token falls further; I have $84.38 in each after rebalancing, and after the Token rises again, I sell it and have $253.13. In short, I've made 26% on my money, just through volatility. I spell it out in such painful detail so everyone can see it's not a trick.

Same thing happens if it goes down and then up. If there is an upward or downward overall trend, this works on top of that trend.

So I can make money by betting on volatility. If one treats this as a single transaction, who exactly is my counterparty? Well, if I am betting on volatility, it's people betting on stabiliy.

This means there are people who have a financial incentive to present cryptocurrencies as more stable than they are. Calling them "currencies", for example, promotes this.

Not sure if I get your point, probably not. Your counter party might bet on a lesser volatility as time passes, which is what's been ocurring for several cryptocurrencies.
So yes, they may present them as more stable.than they are, and their statement will be true in X years, I suppose, if this makes any sense.

 

[fluidistic]

And... Bitcoin has been approved for ETFs in the USA.
I wonder what the real Bitcoin maximalists are thinking. I guess angry that these institutions are "stealing" their precious bitcoins, they would rather have them use it as a currency, I suppose.

 

[russ_watters]

Coinbase argued against classifying cryptocurrencies as securities by saying that the digital coins are like Beanie Babies, more akin to collectibles than stakes in a company.

“It’s the difference between buying Beanie Babies Inc and buying Beanie Babies,” said the Coinbase lawyer William Savitt.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...currency-lawsuit-beanie-babies-securities-sec

Bahhahahaaahaaaaa!!@!!

Seriously, though -- They Know. I think most of us suspected they did.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is this funny because he's wrong, or funny because he's right?

 

[russ_watters]

Is this funny because he's wrong, or funny because he's right?

No, it's funny because he said the quiet part out loud. Is he right or wrong? Yes. That's funny too but it isn't new.

[edit] Less snark, to explain:
I don't know the legal definition of a security. I know a share of GME is a security, but it's also pretty much a Beanie Baby. A bitcoin is 100% a Beanie Baby whether it's also a security or not. I think it would be great it the SEC shut down Coinbase, but the "value" of Beanie Babies bitcoin has been pretty impervious to such actions. Ultimately it'll collapse when people get bored with it and fresh money stops rolling in to prop-up the bubble. Until then it's funny watching their lawyers squirm in court.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's look at GM. It has a Price/Earnings ratio of 4.2, which means the market judges it riskier than 1-year Treasuries, at 20.8. Because the market expects GE to lose money, or at least make little, they need to pay 5x as much as the US government to cover this risk. Investors may disagree about the factor of 5, and that's why we have stock markets.

Now look at Tesla. Their P/E is 68.2. The market judges this as a netter bet than US Treasuries, and are willing to pay a premium of a factor of 3.3. Obviously, they are not buying additional safety, but the believe that it will grow substantially. How much? Until it is about the size of GM.

(Future cars/year) = (Present car/year) x (Tesla P/E)/(GM P/E)

This is obviously not an exact formula, as such a formula doesn't exist, but does that make Tesla a "Beanie Baby"? I would say "partially", and we could all argue about how much.

GameStop, on the other hand, is unquestionably a Beanie Baby. It's P/E is -42. They haven't made money since 2018. How do they stay in business? They are no longer selling games - now they are selling their stock. Are they a Beanie Baby? Very much so.

And therein lies their problem - the US government feels entitled to regulate economic instruments whether or not they are Beanie Babies. They can accept the argument and still regulate them, which is probably the outcome least favorable to the cryptoworld.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The more I think about it, the more I think the Beanie Baby argument may do the crypto-world more harm than good. Why? Mining.

"We have millions of people making Beanie Babies for is."
"Great! How much do you pay them?"
"Um...nothing. We let them keep a fraction of what they make for us."

In addition to the existing tax issues, this makes mining look a lot like self-employment, which means that not only are the profits taxable, Schedule C may apply as well. That's over 15%.,

 

[Astronuc]

Doomed crypto firm Terraform Labs files for bankruptcy in the US
Co-founder Do Kwon is still jailed in Montenegro for using forged passports.

https://news.yahoo.com/doomed-crypt...files-for-bankruptcy-in-the-us-055731287.html

Terraform Labs, the company that wiped out $40 billion from the crypto market with the collapse of its TerraUSD and Luna stablecoins, has finally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Sunday. Bloomberg reports that the crypto firm's estimated assets and liabilities are both in the range of $100 million to $500 million, with the estimated number of creditors being somewhere between 100 and 199. Co-founder and former CEO Do Kwon is listed as the majority shareholder at 92 percent, with an address registered in Singapore — where the company is incorporated.

Following the arrest of Kwon and his associate in Montenegro for traveling with forged passports last March, Kwon is currently still in jail until his extradition to the US — likely by mid-March, according to Bloomberg — where he will face securities fraud charges. The entrepreneur is also wanted in his home country, South Korea, for similar charges, which reportedly led to him, his family and some key Terraform Labs personnel fleeing to Singapore between April and May 2022. Shortly before Interpol placed him on the "red notice" list in September that year, Kwon denied that he was "on the run," but the eventual discovery of his fake passports would suggest otherwise.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sneaking off to a place where there is no extradition treaty with the US, carrying three different passports? No....nothing sketchy about that.

 

[Astronuc]

https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-pastor-accused-pocketing-1-044526435.html
Ex-con and his wife created an unlicensed exchange and unregistered security, INDXcoin cryptocurrency, despite having no experience with either.

Regalado claimed that --- told him investors would become wealthy if they put money into INDXcoin, promoting it as a low-risk, high-profit investment pegged to the average value of the top 100 cryptocurrencies, the Securities Division said.

In reality, INDXcoin was "illiquid and practically worthless," the Securities Division said in its release. The cryptocurrency was available only in Kingdom Wealth Exchange, which the Regalados shut down. It can no longer be sold anywhere.

 

[Vanadium 50]

God told him to?

If he wants to go old school, how about a good old-fashioned stoning? That might cause the next con artist to think twice.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/ftx-crypto-exchange-cancelled-refund-customers

FTX scraps plan to revive exchange and will repay billions to customers​

Cryptocurrency exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried ‘an irresponsible sham created by a convicted felon’, lawyer says

 

[Vanadium 50]

Dozens of customers have complained that they are being shortchanged by the use of November 2022 prices. The price of bitcoin has risen to about $43,300 from its November 2022 price of $16,872, for example.

They don't get it. No wonder they were easy to fleece.

They are getting 100% of $16,872 because that's how much money is left. Yes, they could get $43,300, but then they would only get 40% of it. What happened to the rest? It was stolen. That's what the whole trial was about.

(In principle, people could argue that some creditors should get more and others less, but that will certainly prolong the process. The group that will benefit the most will be the lawyers)

 

[morrobay]

(In principle, people could argue that some creditors should get more and others less, but that will certainly prolong the process. The group that will benefit the most will be the lawyers)

Yes some customers will get more and others less . Seems they should only be able to claim their initial investment at time and price.

 

[Rive]

that's how much money is left. Yes, they could get $43,300, but then they would only get 40% of it. What happened to the rest? It was stolen. That's what the whole trial was about.

Usually the 'that much left' is far more accurate than the 'stolen', I think.

I often find the usage of the word 'theft' in the context of investment(-ish) things disturbing. Suggests that the 'investor' has no idea of prices, risks, mismanagement and such.

 

[nsaspook]

Usually the 'that much left' is far more accurate than the 'stolen', I think.

I often find the usage of the word 'theft' in the context of investment(-ish) things disturbing. Suggests that the 'investor' has no idea of prices, risks, mismanagement and such.

Usually but not in this case. It was stolen by convicted criminals using tried and true old-school criminal tactics called fraud.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a...as-a-scam-from-the-very-beginning-11671029303

A framework for fraud: How FTX was a scam from the very beginning​

The method by which Sam Bankman-Fried siphoned FTX customer funds into the coffers of his trading firm, Alameda Research, had been baked into the structure of the crypto exchange from the day it opened in 2019, U.S. authorities said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/business/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-fraud-charges.html

Prosecutors Say FTX Was Engaged in a ‘Massive, Yearslong Fraud’​

A criminal indictment unsealed on Tuesday and a complaint by the S.E.C. describe years of wrongdoing in Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Usually the 'that much left' is far more accurate than the 'stolen', I think.

Why do you think that?

While the defense tried to paint this as a complicated financial situation that mere mortals could not possibly understand, let alone comply with all the regulations, the truth is simple. Customers deposited money, and the leadership of FTX went out and spent that money.

It's really no more complicated than that.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/02/three-people-indicted-in-400-million-ftx-hack-conspiracy.html

Three people indicted in $400 million FTX crypto hack conspiracy​

Three people were indicted for an identity theft conspiracy that allegedly included the $400 million hack from FTX on the same day in November 2022 that the doomed cryptocurrency exchange filed for bankruptcy protection, court records show.

Robert Powell, the 26-year-old alleged ringleader of the SIM-card swapping group that drained that crypto out of FTX’s virtual wallets, was ordered released on a $10,000 bond after a detention hearing Friday in Chicago federal court. Powell’s attorney Gal Pissetzky declined to comment.

That's so wrong, stealing from a conman when he's down.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It would be funny if all they got were SamCoins.

 

[Vanadium 50]

An interesting identity theft indictment 2 weeks ago. Three 20-somethings were indicted in a SIM-swapping scam. They would make a fake drivers license, use it to get a duplicate of the victim's SIM card, and now they have access to texts and one factor of 2-factor authentication.

One of the victims was an FTX executive, and $400M disappeared from FTX the dayt before they declared bankruptcy. This has somehow been traced to this ring, but the money has been tracked to Russia.

Amazingly, after stealing $400M, they kept on going for six more months.

 

[nsaspook]

An interesting identity theft indictment 2 weeks ago. Three 20-somethings were indicted in a SIM-swapping scam. They would make a fake drivers license, use it to get a duplicate of the victim's SIM card, and now they have access to texts and one factor of 2-factor authentication.

One of the victims was an FTX executive, and $400M disappeared from FTX the dayt before they declared bankruptcy. This has somehow been traced to this ring, but the money has been tracked to Russia.

Amazingly, after stealing $400M, they kept on going for six more months.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ts-hacks-scams-and-losses.740560/post-7055286