> I'm not sure how any of that describes "using customer funds to prop up your affiliated crypto trading firm" Hedge Fund, it was Alameda where the customer de

> I'm not sure how any of that describes "using customer funds to prop up your affiliated crypto trading firm" Hedge Fund, it was Alameda where the customer deposits were backdoored to and it was a Female Standford grad in Mathematics (who claimed to only use elementary math while operating it) who was CEO of said hedgefund where all the funds were lost--I only say this because of the wide-spread condemnation of the tech industry to downplay the effect that Women have on tech, and are entirely silent when it's negative as in the case wit Alameda or Theranos. Just so it's clear, I'm not a misogynist I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the woke mob(s) that SBF played n order to get where he was when it comes to hypocrisy and outright refusal to acknowledge it's prejudices because she doesn't seem to be getting any coverage in this crime at all! SBF is a crook and he deserves all of the scrutiny so far, but so is she and it should be noted as such! Edit because HN sucks at post liimts: > Is this a distinction worth making? I'm not even sure whether "hedge fund" is even the correct term here. Wikipedia describes it as a "quantitative trading firm" and so does bloomberg. Very much so, yes: one was an exchange (that took in customer deposits for the purpose of them to buy/sell on said platform) the other was a separate trading operation which was used to (among other things listed below) front-run tokens with said deposits on behalf if it's owners with said exchange based on the activity of it's user base--it's like not seeing the difference between Robinhood and Citadel in that debacle. It just so happens that FTX and Alameda were founded and owned by the same person, SBF. So, yes their are critical and fundamental differences that should be acknowledged to comprehend what and how this occurred. The Court Ruling is worth a read. Furthermore, the use of quantitative analysis to trade doesn't detract from the aforementioned so I'm not sure why you cited that at all other than to prove you can look up a wikipedia entry. But ultimately, no... it isn't the same thing at all; here is the court ruling to prove it [0], and note the following: > -8-4892-0827-0654 v.2C.The Alameda Silo22.The parent company and primary operating company in the Alameda Silo is Alameda Research LLC, which is organized in the State of Delaware. Before the Petition Date (as defined below), the Alameda Silo operated quantitative trading funds specializing in crypto assets. Strategies included arbitrage, market making, yield farming and trading volatility. The Alameda Silo also offered over-the-counter trading services, and made and managed other debt and equity investments. >> In short, the Alameda Silo was a “crypto hedge fund” with a diversified business trading and speculating in digital assets and related loans and securities for the account of its owners, Messrs. Bankman-Fried (90%) and Wang (10%). 0: https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/33/188450/042020648197.pdf https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/33/188450/042020648...