3 ms·
> Like them not knowing that the transaction was a asset seizure in context of the bankruptcy proceeding is a possibility as crazy as it might sound. This wou
by ninth_ant 4y ago
> Like them not knowing that the transaction was a asset seizure in context of the bankruptcy proceeding is a possibility as crazy as it might sound.
This would _also_ imply that whoever internal to FTX that authorized the asset transfer for siezure didn't tell anyone and covered their tracks well enough that SBF didn't know about it.
I mean, it's possible? But seems more straightforward that SBF was simply lying in the vox interview, he still seemed deluded enough to think he could fundraise his way out of the abyss, and this lie was part of his attempt to raise funds.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dathinab 4y agoan internal person being tricked into a bad transaction counts as being hacked an internal person doing a bad transaction and then bring unreachable counts as being hacked etc. and this didn't even account for absurd degrees of internal miscommunication and misunderstand I have seen in some companies so it doesn't imply what you are saying and like I said likely he lied, but something being likely doesn't mean there aren't other options