4 ms·

But the author makes it very clear in the second par "our claims only remain tentative at best". Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tr

But the author makes it very clear in the second par "our claims only remain tentative at best". Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tries to answer the question of what happened, albeit with appropriate caveats, than something which doesn't advance the understanding of the reader at all?

TotoHorner 4y ago
The New York Times piece is even worse, since it paints a misleading picture of SBF and his cronies losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely).
- nl 4y ago
  Actually it's almost the opposite. This piece speculates very strongly about SBF's stimulant usage degradating his cognitive abilities. Eg: > If the above observations about SBF’s personality and competence are even half true, that would go a great deal toward explaining Alameda’s losses. The entire article goes into much further depth. But it doesn't even speculate about malice.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    "their systems became unprofitable" - "Alameda & FTX jointly continued to lose large amounts of money" - "uncompetitive market-making strategies, risky lending practices" - "erratic behavior and unprofitable gambling". > losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely) They sound an awful lot like trading / accidental losses than malice to me.
    - oldgradstudent 4y ago
      Alameda was a hedge fund. It could lose all of its money and it would be totally fine. The moment they touched customer funds it became fraud and theft. This was not accidental. Losing it in trading might have been, but it was trading with stolen funds.
      - nl 4y ago
        I agree with that. I don't think this was malice though - just extreme stupidity (and hopefully criminal). I think they thought they could trade their way out of it. That's different to malice which goes to motivations.
        anonymoushn 4y ago
        Alameda just non-maliciously gave their own account special privileges on their own exchange, non-maliciously front-ran customer orders, non-maliciously traded on material nonpublic information (their own exchange listings), non-maliciously used their ownership of their exchange to strike trades that caused them $400mm of losses in one of their multiple KCG-style algorithmic meltdowns, non-maliciously stole billions of dollars from their exchange's customers, non-maliciously lied about Bahamas residents being senior to all other creditors so they could withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars again, non-maliciously "hacked" their exchange wallets to steal additional hundreds of millions of dollars from their creditors, and non-maliciously prematurely unlocked hundreds of millions of dollars of FTT and sent it to binance to dump.
        oldgradstudent 4y ago
        All with the best of intentions. For the greater good of humanity. The most effective altruism.
    - nl 4y ago
      Yes to be clear I agree. I'm saying the article doesn't claim malice.
    - anonymoushn 4y ago
      Normally if your fund is out of money and your exchange is fine you could spin down the fund rather than stealing customer money from the exchange
      - blitzar 4y ago
        Normally you dont have a fund and an exchange sharing capital
- andromeduck 4y ago
  The guy is Bronxe 2/3 in league - there's nothing to degrade.
rkagerer 4y ago
There's so much rampant speculation in this article... for me it lost a degree of credibility around the point he fixated on the drug aspect. Despite all the disclaimers. Yes, it paints one picture of how the losses could have added up, but I'm looking forward to more exhaustively investigated reports grounded in more than heresay and gossip.
- andromeduck 4y ago
  We have photographic evidence. What more do you need? This isn't a criminal court.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    That picture could've been literally anything as far as I could tell
    - andromeduck 4y ago
      https://twitter.com/autismcapital/status/1592237980458323969?s=46&t=lKiusoeb_7UDuTzsThNEjg https://twitter.com/autismcapital/status/1592237980458323969...
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Completely unrealistic. You'll never find rampant drug abuse in the financial industry. Certainly not on Wall St.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Is it more fun to read and talk about the story if it covers existing tropes about rampant drug abuse in the financial industry or more fun to read and talk the story without those tropes? Is it more fun if the shared story has a clear villain or more fun if the shared story has a diffusive, complex relationship between good and bad between not only the characters but also the readers?
- anonymoushn 4y ago
naijaboiler 4y ago
despite being tentative, I would guess its the best explanation of what happened. Their handing out margins, and market-making approach with Alameda left them potentially liable to losing lots of money really fast.

TotoHorner 4y ago

The New York Times piece is even worse, since it paints a misleading picture of SBF and his cronies losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely).

nl 4y ago
Actually it's almost the opposite. This piece speculates very strongly about SBF's stimulant usage degradating his cognitive abilities. Eg: > If the above observations about SBF’s personality and competence are even half true, that would go a great deal toward explaining Alameda’s losses. The entire article goes into much further depth. But it doesn't even speculate about malice.
- blitzar 4y ago
  "their systems became unprofitable" - "Alameda & FTX jointly continued to lose large amounts of money" - "uncompetitive market-making strategies, risky lending practices" - "erratic behavior and unprofitable gambling". > losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely) They sound an awful lot like trading / accidental losses than malice to me.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    Alameda was a hedge fund. It could lose all of its money and it would be totally fine. The moment they touched customer funds it became fraud and theft. This was not accidental. Losing it in trading might have been, but it was trading with stolen funds.
    - nl 4y ago
      I agree with that. I don't think this was malice though - just extreme stupidity (and hopefully criminal). I think they thought they could trade their way out of it. That's different to malice which goes to motivations.
      - anonymoushn 4y ago
        Alameda just non-maliciously gave their own account special privileges on their own exchange, non-maliciously front-ran customer orders, non-maliciously traded on material nonpublic information (their own exchange listings), non-maliciously used their ownership of their exchange to strike trades that caused them $400mm of losses in one of their multiple KCG-style algorithmic meltdowns, non-maliciously stole billions of dollars from their exchange's customers, non-maliciously lied about Bahamas residents being senior to all other creditors so they could withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars again, non-maliciously "hacked" their exchange wallets to steal additional hundreds of millions of dollars from their creditors, and non-maliciously prematurely unlocked hundreds of millions of dollars of FTT and sent it to binance to dump.
        oldgradstudent 4y ago
        All with the best of intentions. For the greater good of humanity. The most effective altruism.
  - nl 4y ago
    Yes to be clear I agree. I'm saying the article doesn't claim malice.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    Normally if your fund is out of money and your exchange is fine you could spin down the fund rather than stealing customer money from the exchange
    - blitzar 4y ago
      Normally you dont have a fund and an exchange sharing capital
andromeduck 4y ago
The guy is Bronxe 2/3 in league - there's nothing to degrade.

rkagerer 4y ago

There's so much rampant speculation in this article... for me it lost a degree of credibility around the point he fixated on the drug aspect. Despite all the disclaimers. Yes, it paints one picture of how the losses could have added up, but I'm looking forward to more exhaustively investigated reports grounded in more than heresay and gossip.

andromeduck 4y ago
We have photographic evidence. What more do you need? This isn't a criminal court.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  That picture could've been literally anything as far as I could tell
  - andromeduck 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/autismcapital/status/1592237980458323969?s=46&t=lKiusoeb_7UDuTzsThNEjg https://twitter.com/autismcapital/status/1592237980458323969...
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Completely unrealistic. You'll never find rampant drug abuse in the financial industry. Certainly not on Wall St.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Is it more fun to read and talk about the story if it covers existing tropes about rampant drug abuse in the financial industry or more fun to read and talk the story without those tropes? Is it more fun if the shared story has a clear villain or more fun if the shared story has a diffusive, complex relationship between good and bad between not only the characters but also the readers?
anonymoushn 4y ago

naijaboiler 4y ago

despite being tentative, I would guess its the best explanation of what happened. Their handing out margins, and market-making approach with Alameda left them potentially liable to losing lots of money really fast.