5 ms·

I don't think so. At least not while the money was rolling in.

jefftk 4y ago
If FTX had been doing what they were widely believed to be doing, providing a place where people could trade cryptocurrencies and taking a cut on the trades, I wouldn't have any problem with that: there wouldn't have been harmful means that needed justifying. Which is why all the condemnation is coming out after we learned that they were actually doing something much much worse.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Running a crypto exchange is a grey hat. It is a place for crims, money launderers, gamblers and of course there is the environmental impact of crypto to consider.
- CaptainZapp 4y ago
  I see it a little bit like a dodgy party donor, which is very much appreciated by the party profiting from the filthy lucre being sent in their general direction. Then suddenly scandal engulfs the donor and the honchos in the profiting party are shocked! SHOCKED! I tell you. I think that's a quite good analogy to what happened here. While the money was rolling nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from. Only when that whole house of cards, built within other houses of cards collapsed did the "condemnation" start. Nobody is really interested in details how the sausage is made as long the money is rolling. Thus, any condemnation or distancing from Mr. Bankman-Fried and his business rings very, very hollow to me.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from What do you mean? The public story around FTX, and what they said when you asked them, was that the money was coming from charging fees on trading, which was plausible given the level of trading and the size of their fees. That the condemnation didn't start until it turned out that SBF and FTX were actually doing other things and lying to everyone is not surprising?
  - dmix 4y ago
    FTX had a pretty solid reputation and plenty of legitimate investors like the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Plenty of positive reputation signals. It's not like it was some obviously shady businessman making political donations or something. EA is shady in a lot of ways but this seems like an unrealistic guilt by association.
  - camgunz 4y ago
    Like a lot of other organizations and leaders, EA has egg on its face from SBF/FTX, no doubt. You can see it roiling the community. But while I'm in no way an expert on their funding, I think it's an open question whether SBF funding is part of a pattern of "filthy lucre" as you put it, or one--or maybe one of a few--instance of an unknown criminal funding source doing some reputation washing. My sense is it's the latter. I'd also go further to say that it's pretty hard to track down the sources of all your funding. Even government organizations (the FEC, the IRS, the FBI) have a super hard time doing this. Nonprofits generally just go by reputation, as they have essentially zero investigative power.

If FTX had been doing what they were widely believed to be doing, providing a place where people could trade cryptocurrencies and taking a cut on the trades, I wouldn't have any problem with that: there wouldn't have been harmful means that needed justifying. Which is why all the condemnation is coming out after we learned that they were actually doing something much much worse.

quickthrower2 4y ago
Running a crypto exchange is a grey hat. It is a place for crims, money launderers, gamblers and of course there is the environmental impact of crypto to consider.
CaptainZapp 4y ago
I see it a little bit like a dodgy party donor, which is very much appreciated by the party profiting from the filthy lucre being sent in their general direction. Then suddenly scandal engulfs the donor and the honchos in the profiting party are shocked! SHOCKED! I tell you. I think that's a quite good analogy to what happened here. While the money was rolling nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from. Only when that whole house of cards, built within other houses of cards collapsed did the "condemnation" start. Nobody is really interested in details how the sausage is made as long the money is rolling. Thus, any condemnation or distancing from Mr. Bankman-Fried and his business rings very, very hollow to me.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from What do you mean? The public story around FTX, and what they said when you asked them, was that the money was coming from charging fees on trading, which was plausible given the level of trading and the size of their fees. That the condemnation didn't start until it turned out that SBF and FTX were actually doing other things and lying to everyone is not surprising?
- dmix 4y ago
  FTX had a pretty solid reputation and plenty of legitimate investors like the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Plenty of positive reputation signals. It's not like it was some obviously shady businessman making political donations or something. EA is shady in a lot of ways but this seems like an unrealistic guilt by association.
- camgunz 4y ago
  Like a lot of other organizations and leaders, EA has egg on its face from SBF/FTX, no doubt. You can see it roiling the community. But while I'm in no way an expert on their funding, I think it's an open question whether SBF funding is part of a pattern of "filthy lucre" as you put it, or one--or maybe one of a few--instance of an unknown criminal funding source doing some reputation washing. My sense is it's the latter. I'd also go further to say that it's pretty hard to track down the sources of all your funding. Even government organizations (the FEC, the IRS, the FBI) have a super hard time doing this. Nonprofits generally just go by reputation, as they have essentially zero investigative power.