5 ms·

In the fiat world banks are regulated and can’t do crazy shit with their reserves.

flanked-evergl 4y ago
In the real world all organizations are regulated and fraud is illegal. But sadly something being illegal does not prevent if from happening, and greasing political palms always help: https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-biden-democratic-party-second-biggest-donor/ https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-bid... (https://archive.ph/BBpQN#selection-417.0-424.0 https://archive.ph/BBpQN#selection-417.0-424.0) > The 30-year-old Bankman-Fried has been a major force in Democratic politics, ranking as the party’s second-biggest individual donor in the 2021–2022 election cycle, according to Open Secrets, with donations totaling $39.8 million. That ranks only behind George Soros (about $128 million) but ahead of many other big names, including Michael Bloomberg ($28.3 million). What’s more, he had promised to spend far more on Democrats moving forward, predicting in May that he’d fund “north of $100 million” and had a “soft ceiling” of $1 billion for the 2024 elections.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  SBF spent about 33% Republican / 66% Democrat EDIT: Not accurate ^ Yet 18 of the 25 top donors were Republican leaning. Billionaires comprise 20% of Republican funding vs. 14% for Dems. Most republican megadonors were entirely republican. The big ones are from hedge funds. So yeah, SBF donated to the dems. We need more regulation to get money out of politics. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the republican party is immune to this. They are in it. They tend to be more in it. 96% of house seats were won by the party that spent more in their race. https://web.archive.org/web/20221113221316/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/us/politics/midterm-money-billionaires.html https://web.archive.org/web/20221113221316/https://www.nytim... https://web.archive.org/web/20221113013307/http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/spend-big-win-big-96-of-u-s-house-races-won-by-the-biggest-spender/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221113013307/http://www.opense...
  - flanked-evergl 4y ago
    > So yeah, SBF donated to the dems. We need more regulation to get money out of politics. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the republican party is immune to this. They are in it. They tend to be more in it. Fair enough and thanks for the context, but politically connected is politically connected. Can be politically connected to democrats or republicans.
    - mcrad 4y ago
      Some people will never understand how damaging this level of tech money tied up in politics is. Apparently it's easier to jump on one side and do finger-pointing than to actually accept the level of fraud happening.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Good post. > 96% of house seats were won by the party that spent more in their race. I don’t think the causality here is clear. A lot of companies/billionaires/millionaires and even regular people tend to donate money towards the people who are likely to win the race. If you wanna be in the good graces of the person representing a certain district in the House the best way to do that is to make a bet on the likely winner ahead of the elections.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      I would say... mostly true? The 96% isn't as sobering as it first sounds because most races are not competitive at all. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_race/2022?disp=R&pty=N&type=H https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_race/2022?di... Many have literally $0 by outside spenders (ignoring the parties themselves). On the other hand you don't see a ton of money going to non-competitive races because it doesn't really matter. The politician doesn't benefit all that much so it's not exactly a great way to earn favors. Or at least, that's what I'd assume. Lobbying is cheaper than people expect but a lot of these totals are so low I can't imagine it really matters to anyone. The highest spending race was Nevada 3. With ~$15M for Republicans and ~$5M for Democrats. Predicted a likely democrat Win by 538 and ultimately won by democrats 52-48. Contradicting kind of all points here we're making. It's fuzzy of course. Need to get money out regardless.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  It would seem that there are other failures and frauds predating Bankman-Fried, wouldn't it? While I'm told that the ideological and technical underpinnings of crypto are designed to avoid government regulation, I hope that he is prosecuted thoroughly for any crimes he may have committed. But further, I hope that this high profile Democratic donor drives Republicans in the House and Senate to support strong regulation on this burgeoning financial asset class/stateless currency (I'm still unsure of what it is). And in fact stronger regulation on the financial industry generally.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Republicans are about de-regulation. Whatever they may do for optics temporarily means nothing for their actual focus and goal. Democrats are not much better but I’m not hoping only one of the two parties is going to do legit sustained regulation against the way they actually behave in the medium and long term. Why are you only looking to the Repub party? Ilhan Omar for example doesn’t care much if Biden was given corrupt money. She’s not going to suddenly do everything centrist Biden does. Biden has more in common with your average neoliberal Repub than a progressive Democrat, who themselves are normally only center-left. > And in fact stronger regulation on the financial industry generally. Both parties and neoliberals across the board have done the opposite since Reagan has been in power. Republicans specifically are publicly about deregulation while Dems will flip how they talk but are also about de-regulation and keeping class divides. Look at the top donors on both sides. They are all non-working class. They all make more money via de-regulation and a capitalist society where the rich have more power than others. They already show their hands. They vote for the establishment to maintain their money and power.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
memish 4y ago
People have short memories. They don't even remember 2008.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  No, people are just aware of banking regulations

In the real world all organizations are regulated and fraud is illegal. But sadly something being illegal does not prevent if from happening, and greasing political palms always help: https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-biden-democratic-party-second-biggest-donor/ https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-joe-bid... (https://archive.ph/BBpQN#selection-417.0-424.0 https://archive.ph/BBpQN#selection-417.0-424.0) > The 30-year-old Bankman-Fried has been a major force in Democratic politics, ranking as the party’s second-biggest individual donor in the 2021–2022 election cycle, according to Open Secrets, with donations totaling $39.8 million. That ranks only behind George Soros (about $128 million) but ahead of many other big names, including Michael Bloomberg ($28.3 million). What’s more, he had promised to spend far more on Democrats moving forward, predicting in May that he’d fund “north of $100 million” and had a “soft ceiling” of $1 billion for the 2024 elections.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
SBF spent about 33% Republican / 66% Democrat EDIT: Not accurate ^ Yet 18 of the 25 top donors were Republican leaning. Billionaires comprise 20% of Republican funding vs. 14% for Dems. Most republican megadonors were entirely republican. The big ones are from hedge funds. So yeah, SBF donated to the dems. We need more regulation to get money out of politics. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the republican party is immune to this. They are in it. They tend to be more in it. 96% of house seats were won by the party that spent more in their race. https://web.archive.org/web/20221113221316/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/us/politics/midterm-money-billionaires.html https://web.archive.org/web/20221113221316/https://www.nytim... https://web.archive.org/web/20221113013307/http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/spend-big-win-big-96-of-u-s-house-races-won-by-the-biggest-spender/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221113013307/http://www.opense...
- flanked-evergl 4y ago
  > So yeah, SBF donated to the dems. We need more regulation to get money out of politics. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the republican party is immune to this. They are in it. They tend to be more in it. Fair enough and thanks for the context, but politically connected is politically connected. Can be politically connected to democrats or republicans.
  - mcrad 4y ago
    Some people will never understand how damaging this level of tech money tied up in politics is. Apparently it's easier to jump on one side and do finger-pointing than to actually accept the level of fraud happening.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  Good post. > 96% of house seats were won by the party that spent more in their race. I don’t think the causality here is clear. A lot of companies/billionaires/millionaires and even regular people tend to donate money towards the people who are likely to win the race. If you wanna be in the good graces of the person representing a certain district in the House the best way to do that is to make a bet on the likely winner ahead of the elections.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    I would say... mostly true? The 96% isn't as sobering as it first sounds because most races are not competitive at all. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_race/2022?disp=R&pty=N&type=H https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_race/2022?di... Many have literally $0 by outside spenders (ignoring the parties themselves). On the other hand you don't see a ton of money going to non-competitive races because it doesn't really matter. The politician doesn't benefit all that much so it's not exactly a great way to earn favors. Or at least, that's what I'd assume. Lobbying is cheaper than people expect but a lot of these totals are so low I can't imagine it really matters to anyone. The highest spending race was Nevada 3. With ~$15M for Republicans and ~$5M for Democrats. Predicted a likely democrat Win by 538 and ultimately won by democrats 52-48. Contradicting kind of all points here we're making. It's fuzzy of course. Need to get money out regardless.
hotpotamus 4y ago
It would seem that there are other failures and frauds predating Bankman-Fried, wouldn't it? While I'm told that the ideological and technical underpinnings of crypto are designed to avoid government regulation, I hope that he is prosecuted thoroughly for any crimes he may have committed. But further, I hope that this high profile Democratic donor drives Republicans in the House and Senate to support strong regulation on this burgeoning financial asset class/stateless currency (I'm still unsure of what it is). And in fact stronger regulation on the financial industry generally.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Republicans are about de-regulation. Whatever they may do for optics temporarily means nothing for their actual focus and goal. Democrats are not much better but I’m not hoping only one of the two parties is going to do legit sustained regulation against the way they actually behave in the medium and long term. Why are you only looking to the Repub party? Ilhan Omar for example doesn’t care much if Biden was given corrupt money. She’s not going to suddenly do everything centrist Biden does. Biden has more in common with your average neoliberal Repub than a progressive Democrat, who themselves are normally only center-left. > And in fact stronger regulation on the financial industry generally. Both parties and neoliberals across the board have done the opposite since Reagan has been in power. Republicans specifically are publicly about deregulation while Dems will flip how they talk but are also about de-regulation and keeping class divides. Look at the top donors on both sides. They are all non-working class. They all make more money via de-regulation and a capitalist society where the rich have more power than others. They already show their hands. They vote for the establishment to maintain their money and power.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

memish 4y ago

People have short memories. They don't even remember 2008.

oneoff786 4y ago
No, people are just aware of banking regulations