3 ms·

You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.

by TheNorthman 4y ago

parkingrift 4y ago
Sure, but that’s just handwaving away the question. He made an effort to reach out to a journalist and reinforced the hack narrative.
dahdum 4y ago
He’s rational, he’s just using a different set of ethics. In the Vox interview he says he’s trying to win a jurisdictional battle with Delaware, this just part of that fight.
- VLM 4y ago
  Something I've been thinking about WRT SBF and online ethics, is if someone's true devotion is to preserving shareholder value, etc, if you know "interesting things" have happened and been covered up for a long time, lying on twitter to people who mostly are uninvolved and don't care, might be seen as a legal obligation, not a character flaw. He had an "out" which was the companies business model was to purchase regulations from politicians intended to put all his competitors out of business, that process seemed to be going VERY well, and if he could have held out another half year, maybe two years... he likely would have been very successful. So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Certainly his investors would have made more money if he hadn't gotten caught than how it turned out, and being a criminal organization he can't be honest about that on Twitter.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    There is no reason to believe FTX was going to succeed via regulatory capture. SBF wasn’t a rational thinker. The establishment sucks but it doesn’t mean SBF was competent and had a realistic out. He didn’t. He is an out of control sociopath.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    > So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Please point me to this law.

3 ms·

You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.

by TheNorthman 4y ago

You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.

parkingrift 4y ago
Sure, but that’s just handwaving away the question. He made an effort to reach out to a journalist and reinforced the hack narrative.
dahdum 4y ago
He’s rational, he’s just using a different set of ethics. In the Vox interview he says he’s trying to win a jurisdictional battle with Delaware, this just part of that fight.
- VLM 4y ago
  Something I've been thinking about WRT SBF and online ethics, is if someone's true devotion is to preserving shareholder value, etc, if you know "interesting things" have happened and been covered up for a long time, lying on twitter to people who mostly are uninvolved and don't care, might be seen as a legal obligation, not a character flaw. He had an "out" which was the companies business model was to purchase regulations from politicians intended to put all his competitors out of business, that process seemed to be going VERY well, and if he could have held out another half year, maybe two years... he likely would have been very successful. So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Certainly his investors would have made more money if he hadn't gotten caught than how it turned out, and being a criminal organization he can't be honest about that on Twitter.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    There is no reason to believe FTX was going to succeed via regulatory capture. SBF wasn’t a rational thinker. The establishment sucks but it doesn’t mean SBF was competent and had a realistic out. He didn’t. He is an out of control sociopath.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    > So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Please point me to this law.