6 ms·

According to this[1] when you dig into these deals the "savior of crypto" thing is mostly spin. This submission seems like a PR piece for SBF / FTX. 1. https:

According to this[1] when you dig into these deals the "savior of crypto" thing is mostly spin. This submission seems like a PR piece for SBF / FTX. 1. https://protos.com/heres-why-sam-bankman-fried-is-not-the-jp-morgan-of-crypto/ https://protos.com/heres-why-sam-bankman-fried-is-not-the-jp...

xiphias2 4y ago
Of course he did do it for profit, but still saved those companies and life of lots of people. Giving credit lines and improving risk management was crucial and Celsius leadership prefered destroying many peoples life over giving up control.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  For sure. If I was an investor in a ponzi scheme, I would prefer a ponzi scheme that accepted a bailout from SBF rather than a ponzi scheme that continued paying executives millions of dollars of my money while those executives temporarily remain outside of prison and the company is in bankruptcy.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Grave misunderstanding. It was not because of "hoarding control" that celsius collapsed. No amount of giving up control can change the fact that it was a late stage ponzi running on borrowed time. You could extend that time but it would only cause further suffering by dragging even more people into that black hole
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    I don’t think it’s that simple. I got a loan against my Bitcoin at Blockfi last year, added more Bitcoins as collateral as price went down, and paying 13% interest rate. Another person can loan USD for 5-10% interest rate and Blockfi can manage payment timelines and put away money, just like a non-fractional bank would (for example the Norwegian thin bank). The problem usually comes from the company loaning out my collateral. I would much prefer using a company that doesn’t loan out my BTC (but keeps it in a multisig wallet), but the best company that does this is US only.
    - anonymoushn 4y ago
      Why would they pay interest on it if they are using it in a totally unproductive way?
      - xiphias2 4y ago
        In the case I described they pay interest on the USD and loan it out in exchange for BTC as collateral. It’s different from the scammy product that gives interest for BTC. The problem that makes the company scammy is not separating these 2 businesses (one is a valid business, the other is a ponzi sceme).
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        Makes sense! I misread your comment, sorry.
  - 3np 4y ago
    My take: they were reckless, careless, and incompetent. Basically executing a traditional dodgy-growth-fintech playbook. Executives not caring about long-term risk or ethics may or may not be influencing factors to that. I'm just waiting for crypto.com to similarly blow up in the next big mess, whatever it is.

xiphias2 4y ago

Of course he did do it for profit, but still saved those companies and life of lots of people. Giving credit lines and improving risk management was crucial and Celsius leadership prefered destroying many peoples life over giving up control.

anonymoushn 4y ago
For sure. If I was an investor in a ponzi scheme, I would prefer a ponzi scheme that accepted a bailout from SBF rather than a ponzi scheme that continued paying executives millions of dollars of my money while those executives temporarily remain outside of prison and the company is in bankruptcy.
cuteboy19 4y ago
Grave misunderstanding. It was not because of "hoarding control" that celsius collapsed. No amount of giving up control can change the fact that it was a late stage ponzi running on borrowed time. You could extend that time but it would only cause further suffering by dragging even more people into that black hole
- xiphias2 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s that simple. I got a loan against my Bitcoin at Blockfi last year, added more Bitcoins as collateral as price went down, and paying 13% interest rate. Another person can loan USD for 5-10% interest rate and Blockfi can manage payment timelines and put away money, just like a non-fractional bank would (for example the Norwegian thin bank). The problem usually comes from the company loaning out my collateral. I would much prefer using a company that doesn’t loan out my BTC (but keeps it in a multisig wallet), but the best company that does this is US only.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    Why would they pay interest on it if they are using it in a totally unproductive way?
    - xiphias2 4y ago
      In the case I described they pay interest on the USD and loan it out in exchange for BTC as collateral. It’s different from the scammy product that gives interest for BTC. The problem that makes the company scammy is not separating these 2 businesses (one is a valid business, the other is a ponzi sceme).
      - anonymoushn 4y ago
        Makes sense! I misread your comment, sorry.
- 3np 4y ago
  My take: they were reckless, careless, and incompetent. Basically executing a traditional dodgy-growth-fintech playbook. Executives not caring about long-term risk or ethics may or may not be influencing factors to that. I'm just waiting for crypto.com to similarly blow up in the next big mess, whatever it is.