Did Sam Bankman-Fried Finally Admit the Obvious? (coindesk.com) 87
CoinDesk's Daniel Kuhn writes in an opinion piece: Despite the focus on FTX following its catastrophic collapse, it's remarkable how little we know about how the crypto exchange and its in-house trading firm Alameda Research actually operated. New CEO John Jay Ray III has called Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto trading empire the "greatest failure of corporate controls" he's seen. Wednesday, Coffeezilla, a YouTuber with a rising star who has made a career of shining a light on sketchy projects in and out of crypto, pressed Bankman-Fried for information related to how different customer accounts were treated at the exchange. It turns out, there wasn't much differentiation -- at the very least during the final days the exchange was in business, Bankman-Fried admitted. "At the time, we wanted to treat customers equally," SBF said during a Twitter Spaces event. "That effectively meant that there was, you know, if you want to put it this way, like fungibility created" between the exchange's spot and derivatives business lines. For Coffeezilla, this looks like a smoking gun that fraud was committed.
At the very least, this is a contradiction of what Bankman-Fried had said just minutes before when first asked about the exchange's terms of service (ToS). "I do think we're treating them differently," Bankman-Fried said, referring to customer assets used for "margin versus staking versus spot versus futures collateral." All of those services come with different levels of risk, different promises made to customers and different responsibilities for the exchange. According to FTX's ToS, everyday users just looking to buy or store their cryptocurrencies on the centralized exchange could trust they were doing just that, buying and storing cryptographically unique digital assets. But now, thanks to skillful questioning by Coffeezilla, we know there were instead "omnibus" wallets and that spot and derivatives traders were essentially assuming the same level of risk.
We can also assume this was a longstanding practice at FTX. Bankman-Fried noted that during the "run on the exchange" (pardon the language), when people were attempting to get their assets off before withdrawals were shut down, FTX allowed "generalized withdrawals" from these omnibus wallets. But he also deflected, saying what, you wanted us to code up an entirely new process during a liquidity crisis? Before now, Bankman-Fried had been asked multiple times about the exchange's ToS and often managed to derail the conversation. He would often point to other sections of the document that stated clients using margin (taking out debt from FTX) could have their funds used by the exchange. Or he would bring up a vestigial wire process in place before FTX had banking relationships. Apparently, according to SBF, customers had sent money to Alameda to fund accounts on FTX and somewhere along the lines this capital ended up in a rarely seen subaccount. This also had the benefit of inflating Alameda's books, another dark corner of the empire. Further reading: FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Is Said To Face Market Manipulation Inquiry
At the very least, this is a contradiction of what Bankman-Fried had said just minutes before when first asked about the exchange's terms of service (ToS). "I do think we're treating them differently," Bankman-Fried said, referring to customer assets used for "margin versus staking versus spot versus futures collateral." All of those services come with different levels of risk, different promises made to customers and different responsibilities for the exchange. According to FTX's ToS, everyday users just looking to buy or store their cryptocurrencies on the centralized exchange could trust they were doing just that, buying and storing cryptographically unique digital assets. But now, thanks to skillful questioning by Coffeezilla, we know there were instead "omnibus" wallets and that spot and derivatives traders were essentially assuming the same level of risk.
We can also assume this was a longstanding practice at FTX. Bankman-Fried noted that during the "run on the exchange" (pardon the language), when people were attempting to get their assets off before withdrawals were shut down, FTX allowed "generalized withdrawals" from these omnibus wallets. But he also deflected, saying what, you wanted us to code up an entirely new process during a liquidity crisis? Before now, Bankman-Fried had been asked multiple times about the exchange's ToS and often managed to derail the conversation. He would often point to other sections of the document that stated clients using margin (taking out debt from FTX) could have their funds used by the exchange. Or he would bring up a vestigial wire process in place before FTX had banking relationships. Apparently, according to SBF, customers had sent money to Alameda to fund accounts on FTX and somewhere along the lines this capital ended up in a rarely seen subaccount. This also had the benefit of inflating Alameda's books, another dark corner of the empire. Further reading: FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Is Said To Face Market Manipulation Inquiry
Betteridge's law of headlines wrong in this case? (Score:5, Funny)
And what about the title of this post?
It's turtles all the way down.
Not a surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, he was just winging it with a big pot of money, high on amphetamines, totally sure that he would come out on top, and totally dismissive of the old skool way of keeping track of corporate assets.
What could go wrong? Oh wait...
Re: (Score:1)
You also forgot the bit where the top leadership were constantly busy with orgies, but otherwise spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not a surprise. (Score:2, Insightful)
Heâ(TM)s not in jail, so to him nothing went wrong. He pulled off a Bernie Madoff but just happened to grease the wheels of the right people (https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-biden-democratic-party-second-biggest-donor/)
To him it is just another experiment in his goal of redistribution.
Re: Not a surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not in jail yet.
Bernie Madoff confessed to his crimes before anyone else knew what was going on.
If you consider for example Jeff Sklling (Enron), he wasn't arrested until about 2 years after the event. It might be a bit quicker in this case, but probably not much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But blockchains were supposed to be superior to the old-school way?
Obviously, regardless of your opinion on the above question, this case isn't proof that it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Admit what obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
That he bears the most outrageous name ever possible to bear when you cook up a financial scam of that magnitude?
The investors must feel they've been massively trolled, having sunk their hard-earned into a company operated by a dude called Bankman Fried. If I was him, I'd tell the court "It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into" as a line of defense.
Re: (Score:3)
That he bears the most outrageous name ever possible to bear when you cook up a financial scam of that magnitude? ... Bankman Fried.
And haircut ...
Re:Admit what obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
You are clearly what is referred to as a "low information voter".
SBF has admitted that he donated equally to both the Dems and Reps. It's just that his R donations were "dark money" donations.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://fortune.com/crypto/202... [fortune.com]
https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
Re: Admit what obvious? (Score:2, Interesting)
He also says he didnâ(TM)t defraud anyone. Deflection is his game, not sure what dark money means in this context. Untraceable donations to politicians are illegal.
Re: Admit what obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Untraceable donations to politicians are illegal.
Yes, untraceable donations to politicians are illegal. What isn't illegal is donating money to single issue (aka candidate) political action committees that are ran by friends or family of the politician (yet he has no 'influence' over... yeah, right; tell me another) which spends all that money during campaigns supporting said 'issues' and ruthlessly attacking opponents attacking opponents, often with lies, that said politician can clam clean hands because they have no 'influence' over the PAC. It's am open secret most politicians don't even try to hide any more.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me what Republican PACs did SBF donate half of his money towards? There is a website called OpenSecrets that lists them.
Re: (Score:2)
As as demonstrated with the Colbert Super PAC [wikipedia.org], you can anonymously donate to Super PACs.
Re: (Score:2)
Low Credibility Witness (Score:3)
> SBF has admitted that he donated equally to both the Dems and Reps. It's just that his R donations were "dark money" donations.
I don't know about you, but I always uncritically believe the word of a known fraudster telling lies that nobody can meaningfully verify. There's no way he's just saying that to protect the people we know he gave tons of money to, and as a massive fraudster, there's no way he would just lie.
Why, you have no less than three leftist publications that have printed his words and .
Re: (Score:2)
Why, you have no less than three leftist publications that have printed his words and ... uhh, wait,
...wait, none of the right wing publications chose to publish it. Shocker!
Re: (Score:2)
> ...wait, none of the right wing publications chose to publish it. Shocker!
Actually they did [foxbusiness.com] and actually included how much and to whom, for what we can verify at least, i.e. $262,200 vs $40,000,000 for Democrats. What I don't see there are unsubstantiated and uninvestigated claims of untraceable dark money.
Not that you'd know that given reporting like this [mediaite.com] which on Dec 1 claimed that Fox "ignored" the donations it listed in detail in that article from Nov 18th and blames them for not reporting about t
Re:Admit what obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Did they miss the bit where he donated equally to both sides?
I'm sure they didn't though, because its no secret. [theguardian.com]
That does not count the "dark" donation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit, though, "Bankman fried" is a headline I'd love to see.
Screw this, it's an event I'd buy a ticket for.
Re: (Score:2)
That he bears the most outrageous name ever possible to bear when you cook up a financial scam of that magnitude?
I think we can go ahead and start referring to him as BankFried.
Why the hell hasn't this guy hired a lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm honestly starting to think that he just got in way the hell over his head and that this is genuine incompetence here. Not that I'll prevent our legal system from nailing him to the wall for stealing from rich people. And he ripped off plenty of people in The tech community so I doubt he's going to get much sympathy here. Hell I doubt anyone would admit it but I'm willing to bet that some of the people reading this comment right now lost money to his scam.
But still gave a completely incompetent kid billions of dollars to spend on pretend money. What the hell. I mean like I said I'm sure we're going to nail them to the wall but I honestly don't think we should. A functioning society wouldn't have let him get that far along into something this stupid. It's one of those situations that we really have ourselves to blame
Re: (Score:3)
Haha in fact he had a lawyer that told him to shut up. He fired the lawyer and now from what I hear a family member's law firm is representing him and running a PR machine for him. I think the only thing that might save him is that a lot of highly-placed people in political circles might end up implicated, so they are motivated to at least not completely prosecute him straight away.
Re:Why the hell hasn't this guy hired a lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
And I think his PR blitz is working as it managed to convince you that he's just a poor confused child who got in way over his head. That's exactly what he wants people to think.
This is certainly not the image he originally presented to investors, politicians, and regulators before everything blew up.
Re: (Score:3)
The court of public opinion is not the court of law unless you're way way higher on the totem pole than this guy. Guys like Trump can break the law with impede. Same for Elon Musk. This guy was never really a billionaire or even had Romney level money. He's not a member of the ruling class
Re: Why the hell hasn't this guy hired a lawyer (Score:1, Troll)
Nobody is prosecuting him, because he donated millions to the current party in charge of such investigations.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is prosecuting him, because he donated millions to the current party in charge of such investigations.
Under that logic he will never be prosecuted, because he donated about the same amount to both parties.
Re: (Score:1)
If by same amount, you mean 97/3% split. But regardless, you are right, abolish government.
Re: (Score:2)
If by same amount, you mean 97/3% split.
Please try to keep up if you want to think you have something to contribute [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AOC voted to break the strike, so she's off my trust list. In fact, the only member of "The Squad" who didn't was Tlaib...
Re: (Score:1)
We are talking about SBF, who cares what his employees did, he's the one that set up the system.
You're naïve in the wrong direction (Score:2)
SBF's got none of that. He was hoping to buy one very, very specific law, which is being regulated as a commodities trader instead of a security. That way the weaker CFPB would regulate him and he'd be free to scam away. He failed not because of ju
Re: (Score:3)
I'v
Re: (Score:2)
And I think his PR blitz is working as it managed to convince you that he's just a poor confused child who got in way over his head. That's exactly what he wants people to think.
This is certainly not the image he originally presented to investors, politicians, and regulators before everything blew up.
I don't think that's why he's trying to do.
This guy spent the last few years as a relatively self-made billionaire who could chat with world leaders and was surrounded by folks telling him how brilliant he was.
I'm sure he still believes that everything would be fine if he hadn't filed for bankruptcy and instead raised a few more billions to get through some unusual market conditions or something.
And once this FTX thing goes away he thinks he'll just go and found another multi-billion dollar company.
That's w
Re: (Score:2)
He duped people out of there money with a sham product and got rich. He knows exactly what he's doing. He played the part of a brilliant prodigy perfectly, and now he's playing a dumb child who got in over his head. He duped everyone, and is still doing it. He's a master manipulator. He's definitely not a naive inexperienced child who got in over his head. Doesn't say much for society in general for enabling sociopaths like him. Yes people will enable him to go on and make another company duping peo
Re: (Score:2)
Haha in fact he had a lawyer that told him to shut up. He fired the lawyer and now from what I hear a family member's law firm is representing him and running a PR machine for him.
I imagine it would be very difficult for a lawyer to properly represent him now, given the amount that he's said publicly, which would surely be admissible in a court or hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
High people in political circles don't have a lot of sway over these things. What are they going to do, pass a law?
Re: (Score:2)
Implicated in what way? Nothing I've seen so far suggests that any of them would be more implicated than in for example Theranos, and most likely they would be less implicated than in Theranos.
Re: (Score:2)
Things will get really interesting when his ex girlfriend and him turn on each other. Between the two of them someone has to know where the fork those billions went.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not an approach that has worked in the past, legally. First rule of being accused of a crime, big case or small case, guilty or innocent, is that you shut up. First thing a decent lawyer says is to just shut up. Talking to the public can never help your defense but it is highly likely to undermine the defense instead. The court of public opinion has no jurisdiction here.
"Your honor, I move to dismiss the charges on the grounds that my client is polling well."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's taking hints about how to deal with serious legal issues based upon certain politicians and celebrities who can't keep their own mouths shut? It's ego. Gotta talk, gotta say how great you are, gotta say how all the legal problems are fake news by people who are jealous, etc.
Too many people think that a PR firm is the same as a legal team. The general public is not going to decide guilt or innocence, it's the jury and judge.
Not hard to understand (Score:1)
Why the hell hasn't this guy hired a lawyer...And shut the fuck up yet?
Because he clearly thinks he's untouchable, and the fact he's wandering around free long after Bernie Maddoff was in handcuffs says he may be right.
The FTX books were so poor maybe you can't even prove a crime was committed. :-)
A functioning society wouldn't have let him get that far along into something this stupid.
See: Central Banks, Federal Reserve, FX swaps, By this metric the U.S. has not been functioning for... maybe 50 years?
Wait
Re: (Score:1)
Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have often been labeled as scams by skeptics and non-believers. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. Cryptocurrencies are digital or virtual currencies that use cryptography for security and are decentralized, meaning they are not controlled by any single entity such as a government or financial institution. This makes them incredibly secure and allows for the creation of a global, peer-to-peer financial system. One of the main reasons why some people believe that cryptocurrencies are scams is because of the volatility of their prices. It's true that the value of cryptocurrencies can fluctuate wildly, but this is true of any asset, including traditional currencies and stocks. Furthermore, the technology behind cryptocurrencies is constantly evolving, and as it matures, the volatility of their prices is likely to decrease. Another reason why some people think that cryptocurrencies are scams is because of the prevalence of ICOs, or initial coin offerings. ICOs are a form of crowdfunding, where a new project sells tokens (which are similar to shares) to raise money. Unfortunately, many ICOs have turned out to be scams, with the founders taking the money and running. However, this is not indicative of the entire cryptocurrency space. Just like with any other investment, it's important to do your due diligence and research a project before investing. In conclusion, cryptocurrencies are not scams. They are a legitimate form of digital currency that is based on advanced technology and offers a secure, decentralized financial system. While there may be some bad actors in the space, it's important to not let them tarnish the entire industry.
Allow me to translate:
Cryptocurrencies are not scams.
Several reasons why cryptocurrency creation and usage are indistinguishable from scams.
In conclusion, cryptocurrencies, being largely indistinguishable from scams, are necessarily distinct from scams by virtue of being able to contrast them.
quod erat demonstrandum
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny.
Amazing how many distant (Score:2)
Amazing how many distant synonyms there are for the word "stole". Very distant.
Re: (Score:2)
the blitz! (Score:2)
I was actually getting something out of the general crypto coverage blitz: an idea of which organizations and tokens were failing, and some conception of how they're related. Systems analysis - news for nerds.
But does each and every stop on the apology tour of this particular dickweed really need its own article? I don't understand what the interest is.
Coffeezilla (Score:3)
Fools and their money deserve to be parted. (Score:2)
It's also amusing to watch. To put it more respectfully than deserved, greedy clueless imbeciles make the adult choice to bet stupidly and got burned.
Fools merit ridicule not empathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did all the money go? (Score:2)
Humorous (Score:1)
Where did all the money go. It should be easy to trace, after all, it's all on the black-chain.
Not sure if you meant for it to be humorous but "black box chain" is exactly where it all went, once crypto is sent to a company like this it is technically in one giant company wallet, which then may send any amount on into a million directions, or just hold and make giant loans based on the amount...
Re: Humorous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where did all the money go? (Score:1)
Look at OpenSecrets under Joe Biden
Re: (Score:2)
WAD (Score:1)
Re: WAD (Score:2)
The whole thing is based on faith
So is cash. If I borrow $5 off someone, I can faithfully assume that you will accept that as having a value of $5.
It's like any god. If everybody stopped having faith in some certain god, it/s/he would cease to have value as an article of faith. Any physical items related to that faith lose value in the minds of the once faithful.
Re: WAD (Score:1)
He's hoping the deal he wants looks reasonable (Score:3)
He'll cooperate fully, implicate whoever the prosecutors want him to, reveal all, and in exchange the State goes along with selling the idea that he "drifted into" criminality rather than deliberately chose it, and thus no real jail time at other than a country club is mandatory for him.
"Oh look, 'Sheldon Cooper' inadvertently committed fraud while getting in over his head with finance, instead of sticking with geeky stuff", could be what he hopes to sell to the public, in hopes that will make prosecutors not worry about the appearance of cutting him a deal.
I thnk Coindesk missed the MOST obvious thing (Score:2)
I had to laugh at this article going into the weeds analyzing things and thinking they found the obvious (Sam was lying from the beginning) ... umm ... no the MOST OBVIOUS and basic thing is that it was a Ponzi Scheme, a fraud. Such schemes ALWAYS require dishonesty and fraud, so there's no need to put on a headlamp and helmet, assorted climbing gear, and then go spelunking for some deeper discovery. FTX was a very typical Ponzi Scheme, dressed up a lot with snazzy visual props and lots of buzz words (mainl
Re: (Score:1)
rostand quote (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Risk amortization fails again (Score:2)