4 ms·

Uh, what? SBF being a fraud and a criminal doesn't indict EA in any way. He was also an avid wearer of t-shirts and unkempt hair, are those things are discredit

Uh, what? SBF being a fraud and a criminal doesn't indict EA in any way. He was also an avid wearer of t-shirts and unkempt hair, are those things are discredited now as well?

skinnymuch 4y ago
He didn’t wear that stuff as motivation for his money and power chasing. Nor did the tshirt and unkempt hair community galvanize around him and accept his purported billions.
astrange 4y ago
He was funding a lot of it and they didn’t seem to particularly care that he was obviously a fraud. Their earn to give position actually commands you to become such a fraud to give them money. Which they spend on castles (https://twitter.com/simpleteo/status/1591069362076590081 https://twitter.com/simpleteo/status/1591069362076590081) and pretending all other charity is “ineffective and selfish” because it doesn’t have “effective altruism” right in the name.
- habitue 4y ago
  I mean, was he *obviously* a fraud? You could easily short FTT if you thought that was the case. Additionally, any number of hedge funds could have, and it would have collapsed if they had (the reason this unravelled was a big sale of the token) Maybe you mean in hindsight he was obviously a fraud? But then that criticism doesn't apply to people who took the money before the fraud was revealed.
  - astrange 4y ago
    It’s hard to short something when you can’t trust the exchange. You shouldn’t short USDT either even though Tether is a fraud, because they can fraud harder and blow you up first. Just avoid the business, and don’t grow your nonprofits relying on him paying you.
    - habitue 4y ago
      My point is that actually while everyone knows tether is a fraud, it was not actually obvious SBF was a fraud. Unless you're relying on a generic "everything crypto is fraud" heuristic (which, fine, but not clear why SBF would merit special attention before this week)
      - astrange 4y ago
        I didn’t know this until just now (since I was avoiding the industry and didn’t need to research anything), but it seems like “the company is run by a polycule of stimulant abusers in the Bahamas” is a bad sign. https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 https://twitter.com/carolinecapital/status/1379036346300305408 https://twitter.com/carolinecapital/status/13790363463003054...
        habitue 4y ago
        yeah, I mean that's the definition of hindsight. Once something happens, you can look back and comb for warning signs. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to have a rule like "If someone does stimulants and is polyamorous, dont let them give you money, they're definitely running a scam"
        ChainOfFools 4y ago
        The VCs who goosed FTX and Scam BF with hundreds of millions, resulting in 4 years of feckless tech and finance media fawning over this moron and his supposed "genius" as well as furthering the cancerous spread of crypto into mainstream consciousness, these elite ur-capitalist gatekeepers of gererational wealth - had the 'benefit' of due dilligence before jumping on board. They are now writing down their investments to $0.
        astrange 4y ago
        Their due diligence includes - listening to him claim he’s never read a book in his life - noticing he was playing League of Legends during the pitch meeting while presenting FTX as an everything app like WeChat Which are also things I think I could preemptively say are bad. Though, Sequoia’s also known for firing founders from their startups, so they probably benefit from seeming very generous to new pitches.
zaptheimpaler 4y ago
I just dislike how SBF and many others of approximately the same moral fiber use EA as a way to build up their reputation as some sort of noble philanthropist. Its an old and obvious trick. EA itself is not necessarily bad or discredited, but ultimately im not interested in some theoretical definition of EA. What matters is who the real people practicing EA actually do with the money, and many of those people are like Sam in my opinion. Many are NOT frauds and genuinely do want to help people too, so of course it doesn't completely discredit EA either. Its just sort of stupid how much its talked about as if the idea of trying to do the most good with the least resources is some kind of gigabrain idea. No, thats literally what any sincere charity aims to do.

Uh, what? SBF being a fraud and a criminal doesn't indict EA in any way. He was also an avid wearer of t-shirts and unkempt hair, are those things are discredited now as well?

skinnymuch 4y ago

He didn’t wear that stuff as motivation for his money and power chasing. Nor did the tshirt and unkempt hair community galvanize around him and accept his purported billions.

astrange 4y ago

He was funding a lot of it and they didn’t seem to particularly care that he was obviously a fraud. Their earn to give position actually commands you to become such a fraud to give them money. Which they spend on castles (https://twitter.com/simpleteo/status/1591069362076590081 https://twitter.com/simpleteo/status/1591069362076590081) and pretending all other charity is “ineffective and selfish” because it doesn’t have “effective altruism” right in the name.

habitue 4y ago
I mean, was he *obviously* a fraud? You could easily short FTT if you thought that was the case. Additionally, any number of hedge funds could have, and it would have collapsed if they had (the reason this unravelled was a big sale of the token) Maybe you mean in hindsight he was obviously a fraud? But then that criticism doesn't apply to people who took the money before the fraud was revealed.
- astrange 4y ago
  It’s hard to short something when you can’t trust the exchange. You shouldn’t short USDT either even though Tether is a fraud, because they can fraud harder and blow you up first. Just avoid the business, and don’t grow your nonprofits relying on him paying you.
  - habitue 4y ago
    My point is that actually while everyone knows tether is a fraud, it was not actually obvious SBF was a fraud. Unless you're relying on a generic "everything crypto is fraud" heuristic (which, fine, but not clear why SBF would merit special attention before this week)
    - astrange 4y ago
      I didn’t know this until just now (since I was avoiding the industry and didn’t need to research anything), but it seems like “the company is run by a polycule of stimulant abusers in the Bahamas” is a bad sign. https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 https://twitter.com/carolinecapital/status/1379036346300305408 https://twitter.com/carolinecapital/status/13790363463003054...
      - habitue 4y ago
        yeah, I mean that's the definition of hindsight. Once something happens, you can look back and comb for warning signs. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to have a rule like "If someone does stimulants and is polyamorous, dont let them give you money, they're definitely running a scam"
        ChainOfFools 4y ago
        The VCs who goosed FTX and Scam BF with hundreds of millions, resulting in 4 years of feckless tech and finance media fawning over this moron and his supposed "genius" as well as furthering the cancerous spread of crypto into mainstream consciousness, these elite ur-capitalist gatekeepers of gererational wealth - had the 'benefit' of due dilligence before jumping on board. They are now writing down their investments to $0.
        astrange 4y ago
        Their due diligence includes - listening to him claim he’s never read a book in his life - noticing he was playing League of Legends during the pitch meeting while presenting FTX as an everything app like WeChat Which are also things I think I could preemptively say are bad. Though, Sequoia’s also known for firing founders from their startups, so they probably benefit from seeming very generous to new pitches.

zaptheimpaler 4y ago

I just dislike how SBF and many others of approximately the same moral fiber use EA as a way to build up their reputation as some sort of noble philanthropist. Its an old and obvious trick. EA itself is not necessarily bad or discredited, but ultimately im not interested in some theoretical definition of EA. What matters is who the real people practicing EA actually do with the money, and many of those people are like Sam in my opinion. Many are NOT frauds and genuinely do want to help people too, so of course it doesn't completely discredit EA either. Its just sort of stupid how much its talked about as if the idea of trying to do the most good with the least resources is some kind of gigabrain idea. No, thats literally what any sincere charity aims to do.