3 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 Hmm, well. W
by 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 agoLots of exchanges have survived lots of failures of individual assets traded on those exchanges.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y agoLots of exchanges aren't cryptocurrency-only exchanges.
- aetherson 4y agoThis 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 agoI'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.