> What is there for them to ‘get off’ from? Not to sound crass, but each other... and I mean that in every sense of the word, they felt they were the smartest

> What is there for them to ‘get off’ from? Not to sound crass, but each other... and I mean that in every sense of the word, they felt they were the smartest people on Earth and spouting the EA narrative of solving the World's problems while simultaneously using their Ivy League connections and paying off who they had to keep paying themselves and living in some hedonistic debauchery in he Bahamas as they lived in some poly-amorous situation. > They are losing their money. Is investing in a barely veiled scam a crime? Their is about a billion of what were likely customer deposits missing, and no one knows who took it; the Bahama government stepped in and took what was left after the fact and started the bankruptcy. As for investing in a scam, well, they were funneling customer funds into Alameda so that alone is a breach of basic fiduciary trust in finance, so yes... it is a crime. The question is what will come from this, because the argument is that regulation is required when FTX and Alameda are both regulated and licensed proving the reality of a multi-tiered legal system that includes access to VC money, which as entrepreneurs we've been told is a meritocracy based allocation that is accessible to anyone with 'a better mouse trap' when it's clear that it isn't and never has been. I'm not sure we can get clear collusion charges for these VCs as of yet, but it begs the question of how blatant these connections and funding gets made made for the 'right' candidate with almost no scrutiny for those with political connections which in turn could curry favor at a later time.