5 ms·
Yes, exactly. It was doubly funny because the usual crypto scam nonsense had that extra layer of "effective altruism" bullshit. At this point, if you get into a
by LiquidSky 4y ago
Yes, exactly. It was doubly funny because the usual crypto scam nonsense had that extra layer of "effective altruism" bullshit. At this point, if you get into a crypto venture and it, uh, totally accidentally mysteriously falls apart and you lose everything, you have only yourself to blame.
- TacticalCoder 4y agoOK but what happened, for example, to journalism and these supposedly reputable publications like The New York Times that, instead of actually googling a little bit online (they'd have found in less than 30 minutes that SBF was fraudster and FTX a ponzi) and then exposing Ponzi boy decided instead to be complicit in the scam? Is that funny too?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 4y agoIn a twisted way, yes.
- xwolfi 4y agoYeah and the funniest is all these anti system idiots are now whining "but I read the New York Times", when in fact all they read is Coindesk and youtube videos by commercial actors calling them their "community". I mean fine the NYT is weird, but it's the millions of cryptards on Youtube that syphon and funnel the money...
- robocat 4y agoTragicomic hilarity! A history rife with fraud, deception, thievery, and greed. I feel sorry for the marks that fooled themselves, avariciously put the blinkers on themselves, but it takes a certain attitude to not see the signs.
- phlakaton 4y agoFrom what I read, one NYT reporter covered SBF and did a human-interest gloss on him that many found offensive in retrospect. But even that article had statements from detractors and critics. Who is the mythical person that was taken in by the NYT on this one?