4 ms·

Well 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 gambl

• crtified 4y ago
  They 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 The same way they'd previously made a lot of money over several years, that being the very way they originally made their name and fortune.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 ago
      It'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.