4 ms·

The ties to regulators up to & including SEC Chairman Gary Gensler appear to be really deep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRjzHx5wtk https://www.youtube.com

The ties to regulators up to & including SEC Chairman Gary Gensler appear to be really deep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRjzHx5wtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRjzHx5wtk Not a good look for the SEC.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Don't disagree that SBF was obviously trying to curry favor with the regulatory regime, given that it was pretty much all out in the open - indeed, that was the source of CZ's major beef with him. But this kind of shadowy argument that someone's father's ex-boss' best friend's cousin is some sort of smoking gun is nonsense. At the end of the day, there were no implemented regulatory changes that benefited FTX or SBF. All the misappropriation of customer funds, the news about SBF having a secret "back door" for funds transfers happened regardless of any regulatory changes (or, as I stated, lack thereof) in DC.
- memish 4y ago
  Yes, if the relationships were as far removed as you suggest, but it's parents, friends of parents and donor recipients. SBF's parents are Stanford lawyers who specialize in compliance and ethics. Alameda CEO's dad runs the economics department at MIT, where the current SEC Chairman was a professor. Sam was a key crypto advisor to congress and a top political donor. All of these people turned a blind eye to Sam and FTX and Alameda when it was their job to do the opposite. FBX's chief lobbyist is a former CFTC commissioner, who is now distancing himself. https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1591194581843836928 https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1591194581843836928 Nepotism and corruption played a role here.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    But, again, to make an argument that those relationships mattered, as it relates to the apparent fraud SBF committed, one would have to argue that somehow the SEC turned a blind eye to FTX in a way they didn't towards other crypto businesses. As others have pointed out, you don't need to appeal to securities law to find that what SBF appears to have done is fraud and theft: FTX's Ts and Cs say they wouldn't lend out customer funds. By all accounts they did lend those funds to Alameda, in addition to the fact that 1 billion in customer deposits is missing. Theft is theft, and I just fail to see (and, to be honest, haven't seen any cogent arguments to the contrary) how a more adversarial SEC would have prevented that.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Don't disagree that SBF was obviously trying to curry favor with the regulatory regime, given that it was pretty much all out in the open - indeed, that was the source of CZ's major beef with him. But this kind of shadowy argument that someone's father's ex-boss' best friend's cousin is some sort of smoking gun is nonsense. At the end of the day, there were no implemented regulatory changes that benefited FTX or SBF. All the misappropriation of customer funds, the news about SBF having a secret "back door" for funds transfers happened regardless of any regulatory changes (or, as I stated, lack thereof) in DC.

memish 4y ago
Yes, if the relationships were as far removed as you suggest, but it's parents, friends of parents and donor recipients. SBF's parents are Stanford lawyers who specialize in compliance and ethics. Alameda CEO's dad runs the economics department at MIT, where the current SEC Chairman was a professor. Sam was a key crypto advisor to congress and a top political donor. All of these people turned a blind eye to Sam and FTX and Alameda when it was their job to do the opposite. FBX's chief lobbyist is a former CFTC commissioner, who is now distancing himself. https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1591194581843836928 https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1591194581843836928 Nepotism and corruption played a role here.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  But, again, to make an argument that those relationships mattered, as it relates to the apparent fraud SBF committed, one would have to argue that somehow the SEC turned a blind eye to FTX in a way they didn't towards other crypto businesses. As others have pointed out, you don't need to appeal to securities law to find that what SBF appears to have done is fraud and theft: FTX's Ts and Cs say they wouldn't lend out customer funds. By all accounts they did lend those funds to Alameda, in addition to the fact that 1 billion in customer deposits is missing. Theft is theft, and I just fail to see (and, to be honest, haven't seen any cogent arguments to the contrary) how a more adversarial SEC would have prevented that.