3 ms·
No doubt it was both, to some degree. The latter doesn't excuse the former. And the whole matter is only made worse by (or, perhaps, 'highlights') the surround
by crtified 4y ago
No doubt it was both, to some degree. The latter doesn't excuse the former.
And the whole matter is only made worse by (or, perhaps, 'highlights') the surrounding incestuous cesspool of other crypto exchanges and funds, and the 'crypto media' arms which they own and run. Several of whom are almost certainly engaging in, at the least, grey-area practices, in order to accrue vast and lightly regulated profits.
The fact that many of crypto's best-known names are basically digital bankers-for-profit, illustrates how the scene went off the rails some time ago. From a tech perspective.
- xmodem 4y agoIf you're building a system that's certain to fail once it comes under any sort of stress, when the inevitable happens, that's hardly an accident.
- crtified 4y agoSure. But 'complete downfall' isn't a thing that one advances entirely purposefully toward, either. Unintended consequences will have occurred within the detail of proceedings. Whether-or-not to label those unintended aspects as accident is a decision of semantics. The relevant crimes will be pursued regardless.
- scottiebarnes 4y agoWell in this case, you're labeling "gambling and losing money that's not yours" as "unintended consequences". I mean, I guess you're right in that nobody gambles with the intention of losing.
- crtified 4y agoThey weren't at a casino. They lost the money in trading markets. The same way they'd previously made a lot of money over several years, that being the very way they originally made their name and fortune. That does not lessen the culpability of sneakily using other people's money for extracurricular purposes without their consent. But if we're going to make "gambling" the focus, then let's call a spade a spade - trading-wise, Alameda did what Alameda has always done, since day 1. And a moment of due diligence would have so informed anyone considering investment in anything even remotely related to these people.
- dmitriid 4y ago> They weren't at a casino. They lost the money in trading markets. Yes. They've gambled away the money that didn't even belong to them in a game of chance. It's a casino, but with other people's money. > And a moment of due diligence would have so informed anyone considering investment in anything Ah yes. It's not the criminal who's at fault. It's all the people who didn't think this was a criminal.
- Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago> It's a casino, but with other people's money. To be fair so is Venture Capital and Private Equity. The difference lies in the degree of diversification
- crtified 4y agoIt's not a binary choice. "The criminal is at fault" and "the investors weren't very wise to give him their money" are both true.
- gjvc 4y agoWhy are you defending fraud?
- crtified 4y agoCulpability still exists whether crimes were intended or not. Therefore, not a defense.
- jcranmer 4y agoIt heavily depends on the crime. Many crimes in fact have some sort of mens rea requirement that the offender intend for the action; this is classically the difference between murder and manslaughter. Crimes like fraud generally have a specific intent requirement, so if you didn't mean to commit fraud, you can probably get a not-guilty verdict.
- djbebs 4y agoIf FTX Terms of Service state that customer assets belong to the customer--not to FTX and those assets are used by FTX for any purpose that is a crime. Full stop.
- jeremyjh 4y agoYeah. Just because no charges have been filed yet, and no grand jury announced yet, does not mean there wasn't a crime committed or that it won't be prosecuted. This wasn't some kind of "shady dealing". This was straight up stealing money from people.