4 ms·

It wasn’t a failure. It was a scam. The “failure” was the revelation of the scam, which was a good thing. The fact that SBF has in the past publicly described

It wasn’t a failure. It was a scam. The “failure” was the revelation of the scam, which was a good thing. The fact that SBF has in the past publicly described running a Ponzi and not really recognized it as one indicates it may even be possible that the FTX guys didn’t even understand they were running a scam. But just because they did not realize they were doing so does not make the scam they were running any less of one.

mtrycz2 4y ago
If is, in fact, a problem with FTX, not crypto per se. It's like if "Theranos' scam will leave deep scars in USD".
- highwaylights 4y ago
  I mean, it’s a problem insofar as it reflects badly on everything. That said there’s any number of debates you could have: Was FTX a deliberate ponzi? Was FTX a ponzi but they were too naive to understand that? Was it a ponzi within a ponzi? (I.e. has all of crypto been a single giant ponzi with nested levels all along?) Regardless of what anyone thinks, you only get confirmation either way after the fact.
  - mccorrinall 4y ago
    I would not call BTC a ponzi, but it is indeed true that BTC‘s value is not derived from debt.
    - knorker 4y ago
      It's not entirely a ponzi scheme. But what remains is crime.
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      I'd lean more on the side of calling it a Ponzi, but I think in either case it'll only be clear in retrospect. It'll either: 1) Stagnate. You'll need to wait a really long time for answer. 2) Crash or trend to zero. This would mean momentum is exhausted and money is leaving the table - it's always been a Ponzi in this case. 3) Continue until it finds a utility or it genuinely becomes a store of value. I doubt this outcome very much (I actually think it's impossible due to inherent features of bitcoin), but what do I know? I'm just one person on the internet. Not a Ponzi in this case.
mccorrinall 4y ago
I think it wasn’t a scam, because scamming implies intentional malicious behavior; at least for me. I think they were just… extremely incompetent. Their balance sheet with „semi liquid“ (whatever that means!) assets and trying to apply arithmetic operations on an excel cell called „Hidden, poorly internally labeled ‘fiat@’ account“ pretty much reflects this.
- yakak 4y ago
  While I think competent scammers had better odds of not getting caught, I don't see how it is not a scam to take money, try to beat how it is currently allocated, whether or not you believe you will be able to put it back.
- a4isms 4y ago
  Incompetence is, “I had no idea companies have standard methods of bookkeeping and accounting, or that I could have hired people skilled in these matters, like CFOs, accounting firms, or managers with any experience whatsoever working in business and/or finance.” Malice is, “I knew how businesses are supposed to be run, but I accidentally on purpose chose to run my business in a way where nobody could exercise oversight, and while nobody was exercising oversight, I engaged in a pattern of trades and deals that enriched me at the expense of people who trusted me.” SBF is a grown-ass adult. He knows that when people trust you with their money, you have a moral obligation to handle it competently, or hire people who know how to handle it competently. He and his backers know how to run a business such that the shenanigans he actually pulled would get flagged. He chose not to do so, and his backers chose to look the other way. And then he coïncidentally used the lack of oversight or standard controls to steal billions of dollars from his customers. Believe whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of the world to nod along in agreement.
  - dboreham 4y ago
    All this is true, yet Bearings Bank managed to collapse because one of their employees hid shenanigans in an incomprehensible spreadsheet (I don't think he even needed to hide the cells). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank#Internal_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank#Internal_control

mtrycz2 4y ago

If is, in fact, a problem with FTX, not crypto per se. It's like if "Theranos' scam will leave deep scars in USD".

highwaylights 4y ago
I mean, it’s a problem insofar as it reflects badly on everything. That said there’s any number of debates you could have: Was FTX a deliberate ponzi? Was FTX a ponzi but they were too naive to understand that? Was it a ponzi within a ponzi? (I.e. has all of crypto been a single giant ponzi with nested levels all along?) Regardless of what anyone thinks, you only get confirmation either way after the fact.
- mccorrinall 4y ago
  I would not call BTC a ponzi, but it is indeed true that BTC‘s value is not derived from debt.
  - knorker 4y ago
    It's not entirely a ponzi scheme. But what remains is crime.
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    I'd lean more on the side of calling it a Ponzi, but I think in either case it'll only be clear in retrospect. It'll either: 1) Stagnate. You'll need to wait a really long time for answer. 2) Crash or trend to zero. This would mean momentum is exhausted and money is leaving the table - it's always been a Ponzi in this case. 3) Continue until it finds a utility or it genuinely becomes a store of value. I doubt this outcome very much (I actually think it's impossible due to inherent features of bitcoin), but what do I know? I'm just one person on the internet. Not a Ponzi in this case.

mccorrinall 4y ago

I think it wasn’t a scam, because scamming implies intentional malicious behavior; at least for me. I think they were just… extremely incompetent. Their balance sheet with „semi liquid“ (whatever that means!) assets and trying to apply arithmetic operations on an excel cell called „Hidden, poorly internally labeled ‘fiat@’ account“ pretty much reflects this.

yakak 4y ago
While I think competent scammers had better odds of not getting caught, I don't see how it is not a scam to take money, try to beat how it is currently allocated, whether or not you believe you will be able to put it back.
a4isms 4y ago
Incompetence is, “I had no idea companies have standard methods of bookkeeping and accounting, or that I could have hired people skilled in these matters, like CFOs, accounting firms, or managers with any experience whatsoever working in business and/or finance.” Malice is, “I knew how businesses are supposed to be run, but I accidentally on purpose chose to run my business in a way where nobody could exercise oversight, and while nobody was exercising oversight, I engaged in a pattern of trades and deals that enriched me at the expense of people who trusted me.” SBF is a grown-ass adult. He knows that when people trust you with their money, you have a moral obligation to handle it competently, or hire people who know how to handle it competently. He and his backers know how to run a business such that the shenanigans he actually pulled would get flagged. He chose not to do so, and his backers chose to look the other way. And then he coïncidentally used the lack of oversight or standard controls to steal billions of dollars from his customers. Believe whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of the world to nod along in agreement.
- dboreham 4y ago
  All this is true, yet Bearings Bank managed to collapse because one of their employees hid shenanigans in an incomprehensible spreadsheet (I don't think he even needed to hide the cells). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank#Internal_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank#Internal_control