3 ms·

Did SBF take the wealth using better judgement or did he take it using dishonesty and fraud? My impression is that it's the dishonesty and theft that people ha

Did SBF take the wealth using better judgement or did he take it using dishonesty and fraud? My impression is that it's the dishonesty and theft that people have a problem with, not just being clever and outwitting people in the speculative gambling game. And when those people get the impression that the EA movement is okay with getting money dishonestly as long as it's given it to a worthy cause, they take issue with EA. Edit: Just thought of an analogy. Some charities do raffles, right? You can put money into the pot for a chance to win a prize, knowing that a proportion of all the money people put in goes to the charity. But what if the charity sold a bunch of raffle tickets and then announced that they would not award a prize and all the money would go to the charity? Or what if it came out that the prize was rigged to go to someone affiliated with the charity? In this case I don't think you can say, "Well, those people chose to gamble so they consented to having their wealth taken."

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
To my admittedly shallow understanding SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost. I wouldn't say any charitable work he did would justify the theft, but I also have no qualms about Binance crashing his token so he'd be caught in the act. To put it in point form, I'd say -SBF had bad judgement and bad morals -SBF's clients had bad judgement and bad luck -Binance had good judgement and good luck, and if the people who make it up do a lot of charity work, they have good morals as well. That doesn't help SBF's clients of course, but I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome. I would think most EA folks would tend to agree with how I've characterized it, but maybe someone more versed in that subculture's overton window can clarify.
- PebblesRox 4y ago
  > SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost > I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome I think you might be confusing the two different types of clients who were involved here. My understanding is that SBF initially lost money that had been entrusted to him by investors in his "please gamble with my money and give me the winnings" company (Alameda). I would not call that fraud and I agree that the Alameda investors consented (foolishly) to this use of their money. The problem is that after SBF lost the money of Alameda clients by doing risky gambles that went wrong, he tried to cover it up by stealing money that had been entrusted to him by clients of his "please hold onto my money for me so I can conveniently trade on your platform" company (FTX). I don't think the FTX clients consented to SBF's use of their money to do gambling. They put their money on FTX so they could do their own gambling. While I think FTX clients should have known better than to put money on a crypto exchange for safekeeping, that doesn't change the fact that their money was misappropriated nor does it excuse the fraud.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago

To my admittedly shallow understanding SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost. I wouldn't say any charitable work he did would justify the theft, but I also have no qualms about Binance crashing his token so he'd be caught in the act. To put it in point form, I'd say -SBF had bad judgement and bad morals -SBF's clients had bad judgement and bad luck -Binance had good judgement and good luck, and if the people who make it up do a lot of charity work, they have good morals as well. That doesn't help SBF's clients of course, but I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome. I would think most EA folks would tend to agree with how I've characterized it, but maybe someone more versed in that subculture's overton window can clarify.

PebblesRox 4y ago
> SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost > I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome I think you might be confusing the two different types of clients who were involved here. My understanding is that SBF initially lost money that had been entrusted to him by investors in his "please gamble with my money and give me the winnings" company (Alameda). I would not call that fraud and I agree that the Alameda investors consented (foolishly) to this use of their money. The problem is that after SBF lost the money of Alameda clients by doing risky gambles that went wrong, he tried to cover it up by stealing money that had been entrusted to him by clients of his "please hold onto my money for me so I can conveniently trade on your platform" company (FTX). I don't think the FTX clients consented to SBF's use of their money to do gambling. They put their money on FTX so they could do their own gambling. While I think FTX clients should have known better than to put money on a crypto exchange for safekeeping, that doesn't change the fact that their money was misappropriated nor does it excuse the fraud.