6 ms·

These are all critiques of reporting on a quirky celebrity CEO. Serious question - was there a lot of coverage that said something like “FTX is safe” or “FTX is

These are all critiques of reporting on a quirky celebrity CEO. Serious question - was there a lot of coverage that said something like “FTX is safe” or “FTX is a good place to park your money”? I agree that there is a long tradition of uncritical puff pieces in CEOs. But this seems like a different position from “<insert your hated publication here> misled sheep to the crypto slaughter.”

cma 4y ago
The journalist/author Sequoia hired wrote: > Something of the sort must happen eventually, as the current system, with its layers upon layers of intermediaries, is antiquated and prone to crashing—the global financial crisis of 2008 was just the latest in a long line of failures that occurred because banks didn’t actually know what was on their balance sheets. Crypto is money that can audit itself, no accountant or bookkeeper needed, and thus a financial system with the blockchain built in can, in theory, cut out most of the financial middlemen, to the advantage of all. Of course, that’s the pitch of every crypto company out there. The FTX competitive advantage? Ethical behavior. SBF is a Peter Singer–inspired utilitarian in a sea of Robert Nozick–inspired libertarians. He’s an ethical maximalist in an industry that’s overwhelmingly populated with ethical minimalists. I’m a Nozick man myself, but I know who I’d rather trust my money with: SBF, hands-down. And if he does end up saving the world as a side effect of being my banker, all the better.
- eduction 4y ago
  Has anyone archived a copy of this somewhere online? And who wrote this?
  - notahacker 4y ago
    The internet never forgets https://archive.ph/GQkCp https://archive.ph/GQkCp (It's very long, but it's one of the funniest things you'll read all year)
    - thombat 4y ago
      That was indeed a blast. Of the wondrous sums reported being transferred into EA, how much was actual cash, as opposed to promissory notes, FTX-backed coins, etc?
      - shapefrog 4y ago
        All cash
- notahacker 4y ago
  Sure, but Sequoia's hilarious hagiography wasn't mainstream journalism, it was a PR piece posted by a company that didnt exactly hide how deeply invested in his success they were. (Also probably too long and too weird to tempt many people into using his exchange. My favourite paragraph was the one that speculated at length whether SBF was incapable of feeling pleasure. You don't get that in Forbes puff pieces!)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nullc 4y ago
An article that omits any whiff of risk while heaping on the praise is implying that it's safe, or at least implying that there weren't any obvious red flags.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Worse he gave "grants" through one of his foundations to news outlets like Vox, Intercept, ProPublica, and others. Vox did not even put a disclaimer about them having taken money from him in the fluff pieces they put out. They have only started doing so after the implosion of FTX, probably to ward off potential controversy.
  - strix_varius 4y ago
    *potential lawsuits: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-davi...
- gruez 4y ago
  >or at least implying that there weren't any obvious red flags. Well? Were there any credible red flags? Aside from the standard "all crypto is a scam" rhetoric, SBF/FTX looked pretty clean before the collapse.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Sure, including ones that should have been apparent without any sophisticated analysis: For example, FTX was giving people 8%/yr 'yield' just for funds deposited there in spite claiming to not invest customer funds. The claim that his fund earned >$10/billion over two years on a trivial arb with Korean exchange was also an obvious red flag (and asking people with relevant experience would have got an answer that this not a credible claim). The heavy involvement with and promotion of extremely illiquid and self-made tokens was also pretty suspect, but not unique to FTX. Looking at my messages, I see that I specifically highlighted 'the ftx website lists something called a "3x leveraged shitcoin index token"' ... or the fact that they offered 100x leverage. Who knows what more would have been found if any investigation or critical questions were applied. These specific red flags were clear enough for me-- and other people I know, to yank most of their funds from LedgerX when SBF acquired it. Any journalist writing about SBF/FTX would have had access to much more information that I did. E.g. I didn't see the videos of him obviously tweaking in interviews, nor the easily visible tweets by Ellison about how boring life is when off amphetamines. But someone spending a half hour googling the involved parties would easily have found these additional red-flags.

cma 4y ago

The journalist/author Sequoia hired wrote: > Something of the sort must happen eventually, as the current system, with its layers upon layers of intermediaries, is antiquated and prone to crashing—the global financial crisis of 2008 was just the latest in a long line of failures that occurred because banks didn’t actually know what was on their balance sheets. Crypto is money that can audit itself, no accountant or bookkeeper needed, and thus a financial system with the blockchain built in can, in theory, cut out most of the financial middlemen, to the advantage of all. Of course, that’s the pitch of every crypto company out there. The FTX competitive advantage? Ethical behavior. SBF is a Peter Singer–inspired utilitarian in a sea of Robert Nozick–inspired libertarians. He’s an ethical maximalist in an industry that’s overwhelmingly populated with ethical minimalists. I’m a Nozick man myself, but I know who I’d rather trust my money with: SBF, hands-down. And if he does end up saving the world as a side effect of being my banker, all the better.

eduction 4y ago
Has anyone archived a copy of this somewhere online? And who wrote this?
- notahacker 4y ago
  The internet never forgets https://archive.ph/GQkCp https://archive.ph/GQkCp (It's very long, but it's one of the funniest things you'll read all year)
  - thombat 4y ago
    That was indeed a blast. Of the wondrous sums reported being transferred into EA, how much was actual cash, as opposed to promissory notes, FTX-backed coins, etc?
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      All cash
notahacker 4y ago
Sure, but Sequoia's hilarious hagiography wasn't mainstream journalism, it was a PR piece posted by a company that didnt exactly hide how deeply invested in his success they were. (Also probably too long and too weird to tempt many people into using his exchange. My favourite paragraph was the one that speculated at length whether SBF was incapable of feeling pleasure. You don't get that in Forbes puff pieces!)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nullc 4y ago

An article that omits any whiff of risk while heaping on the praise is implying that it's safe, or at least implying that there weren't any obvious red flags.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Worse he gave "grants" through one of his foundations to news outlets like Vox, Intercept, ProPublica, and others. Vox did not even put a disclaimer about them having taken money from him in the fluff pieces they put out. They have only started doing so after the implosion of FTX, probably to ward off potential controversy.
- strix_varius 4y ago
  *potential lawsuits: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-david-tom-brady-shaq-ftx-class-action-lawsuit-1234632046/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/larry-davi...
gruez 4y ago
>or at least implying that there weren't any obvious red flags. Well? Were there any credible red flags? Aside from the standard "all crypto is a scam" rhetoric, SBF/FTX looked pretty clean before the collapse.
- nullc 4y ago
  Sure, including ones that should have been apparent without any sophisticated analysis: For example, FTX was giving people 8%/yr 'yield' just for funds deposited there in spite claiming to not invest customer funds. The claim that his fund earned >$10/billion over two years on a trivial arb with Korean exchange was also an obvious red flag (and asking people with relevant experience would have got an answer that this not a credible claim). The heavy involvement with and promotion of extremely illiquid and self-made tokens was also pretty suspect, but not unique to FTX. Looking at my messages, I see that I specifically highlighted 'the ftx website lists something called a "3x leveraged shitcoin index token"' ... or the fact that they offered 100x leverage. Who knows what more would have been found if any investigation or critical questions were applied. These specific red flags were clear enough for me-- and other people I know, to yank most of their funds from LedgerX when SBF acquired it. Any journalist writing about SBF/FTX would have had access to much more information that I did. E.g. I didn't see the videos of him obviously tweaking in interviews, nor the easily visible tweets by Ellison about how boring life is when off amphetamines. But someone spending a half hour googling the involved parties would easily have found these additional red-flags.