4 ms·

Well, the Protos Papers established that FTX/Alameda were Tether's largest customer. And they acquired 36 billion Tethers. Now Alameda is proven to be a fraud.

by graeme 4y ago

Well, the Protos Papers established that FTX/Alameda were Tether's largest customer. And they acquired 36 billion Tethers. Now Alameda is proven to be a fraud. So, this basically eliminates the possiblity that they paid cash for those Tethers. Also, Tether admitted to lying in its settlement with the New York Attorney General https://protos.com/tether-papers-crypto-stablecoin-usdt-investigation-analysis/ https://protos.com/tether-papers-crypto-stablecoin-usdt-inve...

williamcotton 4y ago
Alameda was proven to be a fraud? By whom? Is there a chance they broke fiduciary duties and let themselves get wildly over leveraged, even criminally so, but that they had legitimate aspects of their business? How would anyone know that at this point? Most of the commentary seems to be more conspiratorial (and certainly more fun) than anything. I mean, Enron was pretty cut and dry. Dog and pony show, cook the books and team up with one of the big public auditors. This story, within just a few days, had people making all sorts of complex interconnections amongst a whole fleet of co-conspirators.
- throwaway128128 4y ago
  Alameda traded using insider advanced knowledge of what coins FTX would list and delist. "The scale at which Alameda has been frontrunning FTX listings is "much, much greater" than what we've seen before in crypto" https://decrypt.co/114708/alameda-research-18-tokens-insider-info-ftx https://decrypt.co/114708/alameda-research-18-tokens-insider...
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    You literally created an account just to respond to my questions? Anyways. The article you linked to is titled “Alameda Allegedly Traded These 18 Tokens on Insider Info Through FTX”. The operative word being “allegedly”. Also this is just another thread and has nothing to do with any of the previously mentioned co-conspirators.
- graeme 4y ago
  They represented themselves as a crypto exchange where you traded cryptos with other users. In actuality they took all the cryptos away and lost them. So all of the "trades" happening for at the least many months were not real trades, as there were no actual assets trading hands. That's a bucket shop, a version of financial fraud. This....is not that complicated. So, the question then is: do you trust a bucket shop to have been recklessly dishonest about whether the trades happening were actual trades, but scrupulously honest about sending $36 billion real dollars to Tether? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Ok, so first off, that first link that you posted was to a website called Protos. Oh, I did this by hand, so I might have miscounted, but I'll write up some software and start documenting the graph of all of these allegations on the plane tomorrow... The article contained 23 links. 13 of those links were to other articles on Protos. Of the remaining 10, the only primary sources I could find were: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/alameda-research https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/alameda-research https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=MT7000023800:EUR https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=MT7000... https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/55087847 https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/55087847 And then a broken link to something on https://eservices.mas.gov.sg https://eservices.mas.gov.sg I can't seem to piece together the same narrative as you have from these primary sources. Maybe there are more primary sources in those links. As soon as I enlist a computer to do this work for me I'll know. I was not aware that FTX was a bucket shop, ie, never delivered any of the traded assets and was just pure gambling. Do you have a primary source on this? The allegations that FTX were engaging in fraudulent accounting practices seems pretty strong at this point. The allegations that FTX were misusing customer's commodities seems pretty strong at this point. The allegations that involve a complex web of many different characters acting as co-conspirators all seem pretty weak at this point. The better question is: do you trust a complex web of secondary source material?
    - graeme 4y ago

by graeme 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago

Alameda was proven to be a fraud? By whom? Is there a chance they broke fiduciary duties and let themselves get wildly over leveraged, even criminally so, but that they had legitimate aspects of their business? How would anyone know that at this point? Most of the commentary seems to be more conspiratorial (and certainly more fun) than anything. I mean, Enron was pretty cut and dry. Dog and pony show, cook the books and team up with one of the big public auditors. This story, within just a few days, had people making all sorts of complex interconnections amongst a whole fleet of co-conspirators.

throwaway128128 4y ago
Alameda traded using insider advanced knowledge of what coins FTX would list and delist. "The scale at which Alameda has been frontrunning FTX listings is "much, much greater" than what we've seen before in crypto" https://decrypt.co/114708/alameda-research-18-tokens-insider-info-ftx https://decrypt.co/114708/alameda-research-18-tokens-insider...
- williamcotton 4y ago
  You literally created an account just to respond to my questions? Anyways. The article you linked to is titled “Alameda Allegedly Traded These 18 Tokens on Insider Info Through FTX”. The operative word being “allegedly”. Also this is just another thread and has nothing to do with any of the previously mentioned co-conspirators.
graeme 4y ago
They represented themselves as a crypto exchange where you traded cryptos with other users. In actuality they took all the cryptos away and lost them. So all of the "trades" happening for at the least many months were not real trades, as there were no actual assets trading hands. That's a bucket shop, a version of financial fraud. This....is not that complicated. So, the question then is: do you trust a bucket shop to have been recklessly dishonest about whether the trades happening were actual trades, but scrupulously honest about sending $36 billion real dollars to Tether? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Ok, so first off, that first link that you posted was to a website called Protos. Oh, I did this by hand, so I might have miscounted, but I'll write up some software and start documenting the graph of all of these allegations on the plane tomorrow... The article contained 23 links. 13 of those links were to other articles on Protos. Of the remaining 10, the only primary sources I could find were: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/alameda-research https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/alameda-research https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=MT7000023800:EUR https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=MT7000... https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/55087847 https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/55087847 And then a broken link to something on https://eservices.mas.gov.sg https://eservices.mas.gov.sg I can't seem to piece together the same narrative as you have from these primary sources. Maybe there are more primary sources in those links. As soon as I enlist a computer to do this work for me I'll know. I was not aware that FTX was a bucket shop, ie, never delivered any of the traded assets and was just pure gambling. Do you have a primary source on this? The allegations that FTX were engaging in fraudulent accounting practices seems pretty strong at this point. The allegations that FTX were misusing customer's commodities seems pretty strong at this point. The allegations that involve a complex web of many different characters acting as co-conspirators all seem pretty weak at this point. The better question is: do you trust a complex web of secondary source material?
  - graeme 4y ago