4 ms·

Levine himself says that SBF wasn't calling FTX or Alameda ponzi schemes, but rather was saying that some of the coins traded on FTX were ponzis, and that he le

Levine himself says that SBF wasn't calling FTX or Alameda ponzi schemes, but rather was saying that some of the coins traded on FTX were ponzis, and that he left that interview feeling impressed with SBF's savvy. Specifically, Levine's words: People on Twitter now are like “he admitted that FTX is a Ponzi!” but of course that’s not true. He conceded a certain validity to my claim that some crypto businesses — not his — are Ponzis. He is just in the business of trading their tokens. In fact, I came away from that conversation bullish on FTX and Bankman-Fried. Reference: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-10/ftx-is-still-looking-for-money https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-10/ftx-is... (paywalled)

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Levine himself says that SBF wasn't calling FTX or Alameda ponzi schemes, but rather was saying that some of the coins traded on FTX were ponzis Hmm, well. When the ponzi schemes inevitably collapse, then so does the trade in them, right?
- aetherson 4y ago
  Lots of exchanges have survived lots of failures of individual assets traded on those exchanges.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    Lots of exchanges aren't cryptocurrency-only exchanges.
    - aetherson 4y ago
      This all seems very counterfactual and vibes based. To be clear about this conversation, someone claims that Levine "called SBF out on running a Ponzi scheme." I provide a clear quote from Levine disavowing that. You come in and say that well, maybe FTX was unsound in a way that is actually different from what actually went wrong with FTX/Alameda. Is there any content to your contribution here? Or is it all just vibes?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        I'm not disputing that Mr Levine's take was that SBF and co were "in the Ponzi (trading) business" rather than running a Ponzi themselves. I am just just pointing out that while this is not as rapidly or completely unstable as running one of the traded Ponzis, it is also not fundamentally stable and sustainable. IDK what "vibes" have to do with that, if anything. These are fundamentals that eventually bring down temporarily bubbles. If that's what you mean by "vibes", it's the opposite.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> Levine himself says that SBF wasn't calling FTX or Alameda ponzi schemes, but rather was saying that some of the coins traded on FTX were ponzis Hmm, well. When the ponzi schemes inevitably collapse, then so does the trade in them, right?

aetherson 4y ago
Lots of exchanges have survived lots of failures of individual assets traded on those exchanges.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  Lots of exchanges aren't cryptocurrency-only exchanges.
  - aetherson 4y ago
    This all seems very counterfactual and vibes based. To be clear about this conversation, someone claims that Levine "called SBF out on running a Ponzi scheme." I provide a clear quote from Levine disavowing that. You come in and say that well, maybe FTX was unsound in a way that is actually different from what actually went wrong with FTX/Alameda. Is there any content to your contribution here? Or is it all just vibes?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      I'm not disputing that Mr Levine's take was that SBF and co were "in the Ponzi (trading) business" rather than running a Ponzi themselves. I am just just pointing out that while this is not as rapidly or completely unstable as running one of the traded Ponzis, it is also not fundamentally stable and sustainable. IDK what "vibes" have to do with that, if anything. These are fundamentals that eventually bring down temporarily bubbles. If that's what you mean by "vibes", it's the opposite.