3 ms·

If I'm not mistaken, the winkelvoss trust review process was delayed b/c they shared a securities lawyer with Martin Shkreli. https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin

If I'm not mistaken, the winkelvoss trust review process was delayed b/c they shared a securities lawyer with Martin Shkreli. https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/winkelvoss-twins-etf-lawyer-evan-greebel-arrested-in-martin-shkreli-case-t4059.html https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/winkelvoss-twin... Guess they have a new lawyer now...

smnscu 10y ago
Off-topic, but I found Shkreli's interview on The Breakfast Club very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEE_E8QUSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEE_E8QUSc
- baby 10y ago
  Never heard about that guy before, but he seems completely crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9jywQ4cgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9jywQ4cgc There is a bit of an American Psycho vibe.
  - Taylor_OD 10y ago
    He has a couple interesting interviews out there. I wouldn't know how to find it again but I watched a live stream where he was taking questions from anyone. A gay man confronted him about his pricing of that one drug he raised by several thousand percent. He actually had a decent answer. It might have been all bullshit but it made me see him in a slightly different light.
    - smnscu 10y ago
      As far as I remember, his answer was that (1) the product was underpriced and it's a company's duty to get as much profit as possible for their shareholders etc. and (2) the product itself was very cheap and they offered it for free for anyone without insurance – apparently about 40% of it was given away this way. Now, he might just be a charismatic psychopath, but if this is true it does indeed put him in quite a different light. edit: yes, it might've been 60% instead of 40%, I wanted to err on the side of caution :)
      - baby 10y ago
        in another interview with Vice, he says that 2/3 of the products were given out for free. That only the big corporation would pay full price for the product, so who cares? And that most of the profits (60%) would go into R&D.

smnscu 10y ago

Off-topic, but I found Shkreli's interview on The Breakfast Club very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEE_E8QUSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEE_E8QUSc

baby 10y ago
Never heard about that guy before, but he seems completely crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9jywQ4cgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9jywQ4cgc There is a bit of an American Psycho vibe.
- Taylor_OD 10y ago
  He has a couple interesting interviews out there. I wouldn't know how to find it again but I watched a live stream where he was taking questions from anyone. A gay man confronted him about his pricing of that one drug he raised by several thousand percent. He actually had a decent answer. It might have been all bullshit but it made me see him in a slightly different light.
  - smnscu 10y ago
    As far as I remember, his answer was that (1) the product was underpriced and it's a company's duty to get as much profit as possible for their shareholders etc. and (2) the product itself was very cheap and they offered it for free for anyone without insurance – apparently about 40% of it was given away this way. Now, he might just be a charismatic psychopath, but if this is true it does indeed put him in quite a different light. edit: yes, it might've been 60% instead of 40%, I wanted to err on the side of caution :)
    - baby 10y ago
      in another interview with Vice, he says that 2/3 of the products were given out for free. That only the big corporation would pay full price for the product, so who cares? And that most of the profits (60%) would go into R&D.