4 ms·

That's horrible news for the Democrats. If they refuse the donations, that's a strong statement on cryptocurrencies, which is a controversial issue they'd prob

That's horrible news for the Democrats. If they refuse the donations, that's a strong statement on cryptocurrencies, which is a controversial issue they'd probably prefer to ignore, since it's not particularly relevant to their aims. If they choose to take the money, they risk having to defend that choice if the cryptocurrency industry collapses in disgrace.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
>Democrats >refuse the donations Hahaha. They have already accepted millions of dollars donated by him to various PACs, among them Pelosi's "House Majority PAC". He was among the largest donors to Bidens campaign. He also donated USD 10 million to "Protect Our Future" PAC, which supposedly is about protecting the environment and caring about "biodiversity" according to their website, but has actually forwarded that money to politicians. They exclusively give to Democrats as a ProPublica investigation has shown¹. $13.5 million to some candidate for Oregon that ended up losing for example. ¹ https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514/2022/independent-expenditures https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514...
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I don't know Sam Bankman-Friend personally but we have some connections in common and I'm also somewhat involved in the Effective Altruism community which he is also a part of. While it is difficult to disentangle where he is advocating for his own business interests versus personal interests, I think especially when it comes to the money for the "Protect Our Future" PAC and subsequently for the Carrick Flynn campaign ("some candidate for Oregon" that you mentioned) these donations were more about longtermist beliefs, especially around pandemic prevention than anything around crypto. I think this politico article probably has the best overview: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-flynn-save-world-congress-00031959 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-fl...
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    What sort of altruist has no qualms about billionaires blatantly influencing the democratic process and a political system where candidates outright take bribes in the millions? It doesn't matter much what they purport the donations are for, no one in their right mind would admit they lobby senators for power and control. It's always for the children, for the environment, for "our" future etc. Everyone sufficiently rich enough has a tax exempt foundation in their name. There is a long line of mega rich "altruists" controlling politics, an earlier generation of web company founders with people like Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg is highly active with their charitable foundations and their corporations largely control what the public thinks and what people are allowed to say online. Now a new generation is rising, riding on the wave of decentralization. And just so you don't get me wrong, decentralization is a good thing and Bitcoin was a great innovation. The likes of Bankman-Fried don't represent the spirit of it, just as the likes of Microsoft represent the polar opposite of what the internet was meant to be: A means of free expression and information flow around the world. A democratizing force. These people are corrupting it.
    - tootie 4y ago
      If you think climate is the top issue facing the planet, the most effective step you can take is getting Democrats elected in the US. And since the other side is onboard with unlimited political spending, there is no choice but to match them.
      - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
        Of course, it's done wonders over the past 100 years. Only the single worst CO2 emitter in the entire history of the world and the Democratic Party was in charge half of the time. Very effective.
        tootie 4y ago
        It wasn't a political issue for most of those years. There's no question who is being serious right now and who isn't. When voters torched Jimmy Carter, environmentalism went backwards for a long time. Obama and Biden have tried and been very marginally successful at reversing climate damage while Bush and Trump ran us backwards as fast as they could. Don't be obtuse there's an abundantly clear winner on this topic.
tootie 4y ago
Nobody has to accept anything. If he gives money to PACs it's literally impossible to stop him.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> If they choose to take the money, they risk having to defend that choice if the cryptocurrency industry collapses in disgrace Take the money. If he collapses, there is nobody to whom any favours must be paid. That’s a win. This giving by Bankman-Fried looks like the same mistake Jen Bush’s campaign donors made in ‘16, thinking a cheque and a cheque alone buys power.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

>Democrats >refuse the donations Hahaha. They have already accepted millions of dollars donated by him to various PACs, among them Pelosi's "House Majority PAC". He was among the largest donors to Bidens campaign. He also donated USD 10 million to "Protect Our Future" PAC, which supposedly is about protecting the environment and caring about "biodiversity" according to their website, but has actually forwarded that money to politicians. They exclusively give to Democrats as a ProPublica investigation has shown¹. $13.5 million to some candidate for Oregon that ended up losing for example. ¹ https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514/2022/independent-expenditures https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514...

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I don't know Sam Bankman-Friend personally but we have some connections in common and I'm also somewhat involved in the Effective Altruism community which he is also a part of. While it is difficult to disentangle where he is advocating for his own business interests versus personal interests, I think especially when it comes to the money for the "Protect Our Future" PAC and subsequently for the Carrick Flynn campaign ("some candidate for Oregon" that you mentioned) these donations were more about longtermist beliefs, especially around pandemic prevention than anything around crypto. I think this politico article probably has the best overview: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-flynn-save-world-congress-00031959 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-fl...
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  What sort of altruist has no qualms about billionaires blatantly influencing the democratic process and a political system where candidates outright take bribes in the millions? It doesn't matter much what they purport the donations are for, no one in their right mind would admit they lobby senators for power and control. It's always for the children, for the environment, for "our" future etc. Everyone sufficiently rich enough has a tax exempt foundation in their name. There is a long line of mega rich "altruists" controlling politics, an earlier generation of web company founders with people like Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg is highly active with their charitable foundations and their corporations largely control what the public thinks and what people are allowed to say online. Now a new generation is rising, riding on the wave of decentralization. And just so you don't get me wrong, decentralization is a good thing and Bitcoin was a great innovation. The likes of Bankman-Fried don't represent the spirit of it, just as the likes of Microsoft represent the polar opposite of what the internet was meant to be: A means of free expression and information flow around the world. A democratizing force. These people are corrupting it.
  - tootie 4y ago
    If you think climate is the top issue facing the planet, the most effective step you can take is getting Democrats elected in the US. And since the other side is onboard with unlimited political spending, there is no choice but to match them.
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      Of course, it's done wonders over the past 100 years. Only the single worst CO2 emitter in the entire history of the world and the Democratic Party was in charge half of the time. Very effective.
      - tootie 4y ago
        It wasn't a political issue for most of those years. There's no question who is being serious right now and who isn't. When voters torched Jimmy Carter, environmentalism went backwards for a long time. Obama and Biden have tried and been very marginally successful at reversing climate damage while Bush and Trump ran us backwards as fast as they could. Don't be obtuse there's an abundantly clear winner on this topic.

tootie 4y ago

Nobody has to accept anything. If he gives money to PACs it's literally impossible to stop him.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> If they choose to take the money, they risk having to defend that choice if the cryptocurrency industry collapses in disgrace Take the money. If he collapses, there is nobody to whom any favours must be paid. That’s a win. This giving by Bankman-Fried looks like the same mistake Jen Bush’s campaign donors made in ‘16, thinking a cheque and a cheque alone buys power.