4 ms·

There's no way this is a coincidence. This is undoubtedly people who work(ed) at the company and were trusted with private keys trying to get away with some mon

by smt88 4y ago

There's no way this is a coincidence. This is undoubtedly people who work(ed) at the company and were trusted with private keys trying to get away with some money while they can.

alasdair_ 4y ago
Agreed. It's by far the simplest answer. They already have the keys and have the code.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  I don't think it was insider job. If insiders wanted to steal people's assets why do it in such a public manner? If they have the keys they can just move funds discretely from the larger pooled assets without draining individual accounts. A malicious app update draws way too much undue attention.
  - oliv__ 4y ago
    If I were an insider, I'd want to steal the funds out in the open and add decoys such as the app update to make it look like a hack.
bmitc 4y ago
What's weird is, why wasn't the system turned off? They've totally collapsed, filing bankruptcy, and supposedly aren't allowing withdrawals, so what was the point of leaving the system up and vulnerable?
- 55555 4y ago
  They don't have the power to pause non-FTT blockchain systems. What you're suggesting isn't really possible. Someone has to hold the keys -- and I doubt they used sufficient multi-sig -- and anyone who has the keys can always move the funds.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    But aren't they themselves (FTX) custodians of these funds? In that case, why not turn their services off to protect the keys from being hacked? What you say makes sense once a hack takes place, but how did the hackers get the keys? Or do they use external custodians?
    - v64 4y ago
      > how did the hackers get the keys? It's most likely an inside job, either by disgruntled employees or SBF himself: "In a subsequent examination, FTX legal and finance teams also learned that Bankman-Fried implemented what the two people described as a "backdoor" in FTX's book-keeping system, which was built using bespoke software. They said the "backdoor" allowed Bankman-Fried to execute commands that could alter the company's financial records without alerting other people, including external auditors. This set-up meant that the movement of the $10 billion in funds to Alameda did not trigger internal compliance or accounting red flags at FTX, they said." [1] [1] https://archive.ph/YImJS https://archive.ph/YImJS
      - smt88 4y ago
        That is truly astonishing. How did he think he could get away with it? I kept wondering how someone who seemed smart, wanted to help others, and admitted that crypto is a Ponzi scheme could end up in crypto. It broke my brain. Now I see he was a brazen criminal all along and the world makes sense again.

by smt88 4y ago

There's no way this is a coincidence. This is undoubtedly people who work(ed) at the company and were trusted with private keys trying to get away with some money while they can.

alasdair_ 4y ago

Agreed. It's by far the simplest answer. They already have the keys and have the code.

paulpauper 4y ago
I don't think it was insider job. If insiders wanted to steal people's assets why do it in such a public manner? If they have the keys they can just move funds discretely from the larger pooled assets without draining individual accounts. A malicious app update draws way too much undue attention.
- oliv__ 4y ago
  If I were an insider, I'd want to steal the funds out in the open and add decoys such as the app update to make it look like a hack.

bmitc 4y ago

What's weird is, why wasn't the system turned off? They've totally collapsed, filing bankruptcy, and supposedly aren't allowing withdrawals, so what was the point of leaving the system up and vulnerable?

55555 4y ago
They don't have the power to pause non-FTT blockchain systems. What you're suggesting isn't really possible. Someone has to hold the keys -- and I doubt they used sufficient multi-sig -- and anyone who has the keys can always move the funds.
- bmitc 4y ago
  But aren't they themselves (FTX) custodians of these funds? In that case, why not turn their services off to protect the keys from being hacked? What you say makes sense once a hack takes place, but how did the hackers get the keys? Or do they use external custodians?
  - v64 4y ago
    > how did the hackers get the keys? It's most likely an inside job, either by disgruntled employees or SBF himself: "In a subsequent examination, FTX legal and finance teams also learned that Bankman-Fried implemented what the two people described as a "backdoor" in FTX's book-keeping system, which was built using bespoke software. They said the "backdoor" allowed Bankman-Fried to execute commands that could alter the company's financial records without alerting other people, including external auditors. This set-up meant that the movement of the $10 billion in funds to Alameda did not trigger internal compliance or accounting red flags at FTX, they said." [1] [1] https://archive.ph/YImJS https://archive.ph/YImJS
    - smt88 4y ago
      That is truly astonishing. How did he think he could get away with it? I kept wondering how someone who seemed smart, wanted to help others, and admitted that crypto is a Ponzi scheme could end up in crypto. It broke my brain. Now I see he was a brazen criminal all along and the world makes sense again.