3 ms·

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

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.

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.