4 ms·

Waters is not a prosecutor. She's on the financial services committee; there's been a big disruption in the finance world. It's pretty normal for the committee

Waters is not a prosecutor. She's on the financial services committee; there's been a big disruption in the finance world. It's pretty normal for the committee to investigate it. If you were in her position - wouldn't you reach out to SBF? If you did - wouldn't you do so with honey and not vinegar? What is there about what or how she did this that leads you to believe it's a ploy for attention rather than straightforwardly doing her job? For me the only unusual thing is that it's over Twitter, but seeing as how he and CZ laid out all their bad blood over Twitter, that seems to be the preferred medium for this community.

mindslight 4y ago
Yes, I know that. The "big disruption" is that someone committed basic fraud - SBF seemingly took money while promising to act as its custodian, while actually gambling with it behind the scenes. What's the meta issue to be investigated and pondered here? Fraud is one of the oldest crimes. Arrest the fraudster, put them in jail, perhaps recover some assets for the victims, done. I'm not saying that's a quick process, nor should it be. But congress treating this as some sort of exceptional meta issue simultaneously deemphasizes that SBF appears to be a run of the mill fraudster ("but on the Internet"), while also emphasizing the narrative that "something must be done" (in other words, never let a good crisis go to waste).
- maxbond 4y ago
  Is it basic fraud, or are there important facts we don't know? Should crypto be regulated and if so how? How can we answer these questions without conducting an investigation? I agree with you that that is how it currently appears based on media reports, but that doesn't mean that's the whole story. To me it seems pretty obvious that Congress would want to know more.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    What we're debating is where that investigation is conducted. Conducting it in congress implies some exceptional thing that needs to be reformed, rather than the brazen simplistic criminality that it seemingly was. This speaks to a two class justice system, with SBF in the same category as other "too big to fail" criminals. How about starting with a criminal investigation? If that turns up some novel twist exonerating SBF and indicating a meta-issue, like say FTX was actually hacked, then congress can take over. As it stands, all signs point to simple fraud where customer deposits were given to Alameda to gamble with. As far as regulating cryptocurrency more, that impulse is precisely what I mean by "never let a good crisis go to waste". Fuck, continuing this line of thought I almost have the wonder if SBF is more like an Epstein-club actor here, doing the deliberate job of looting cryptocurrency for the political class, while creating a disaster to usher in more regulation.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I think you misunderstand that investigations often take place in Congress and the DoJ simultaneously, and that Congress conducts quite a few of them, most of which don't result in regulation. There's almost certainly an investigation in the DoJ. We're not going to hear about it for a long time. It's a foregone conclusion that crypto will be regulated. Congress has been figuring out how it should be regulated - not if - for a while. One of their key contacts in this industry, who spent a huge amount of time assuring them it wasn't all a scam - was a scammer. That matters to them. The last part of your comment, where you suggest SBF blew up his own empire so that Congress could maybe pass a law. I don't really know what to say, this is a literal conspiracy theory. I'd encourage you to try and get more perspective.

mindslight 4y ago

Yes, I know that. The "big disruption" is that someone committed basic fraud - SBF seemingly took money while promising to act as its custodian, while actually gambling with it behind the scenes. What's the meta issue to be investigated and pondered here? Fraud is one of the oldest crimes. Arrest the fraudster, put them in jail, perhaps recover some assets for the victims, done. I'm not saying that's a quick process, nor should it be. But congress treating this as some sort of exceptional meta issue simultaneously deemphasizes that SBF appears to be a run of the mill fraudster ("but on the Internet"), while also emphasizing the narrative that "something must be done" (in other words, never let a good crisis go to waste).

maxbond 4y ago
Is it basic fraud, or are there important facts we don't know? Should crypto be regulated and if so how? How can we answer these questions without conducting an investigation? I agree with you that that is how it currently appears based on media reports, but that doesn't mean that's the whole story. To me it seems pretty obvious that Congress would want to know more.
- mindslight 4y ago
  What we're debating is where that investigation is conducted. Conducting it in congress implies some exceptional thing that needs to be reformed, rather than the brazen simplistic criminality that it seemingly was. This speaks to a two class justice system, with SBF in the same category as other "too big to fail" criminals. How about starting with a criminal investigation? If that turns up some novel twist exonerating SBF and indicating a meta-issue, like say FTX was actually hacked, then congress can take over. As it stands, all signs point to simple fraud where customer deposits were given to Alameda to gamble with. As far as regulating cryptocurrency more, that impulse is precisely what I mean by "never let a good crisis go to waste". Fuck, continuing this line of thought I almost have the wonder if SBF is more like an Epstein-club actor here, doing the deliberate job of looting cryptocurrency for the political class, while creating a disaster to usher in more regulation.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I think you misunderstand that investigations often take place in Congress and the DoJ simultaneously, and that Congress conducts quite a few of them, most of which don't result in regulation. There's almost certainly an investigation in the DoJ. We're not going to hear about it for a long time. It's a foregone conclusion that crypto will be regulated. Congress has been figuring out how it should be regulated - not if - for a while. One of their key contacts in this industry, who spent a huge amount of time assuring them it wasn't all a scam - was a scammer. That matters to them. The last part of your comment, where you suggest SBF blew up his own empire so that Congress could maybe pass a law. I don't really know what to say, this is a literal conspiracy theory. I'd encourage you to try and get more perspective.