4 ms·

If someone has a direct contact to someone from the committee please forward them this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo https://www.youtube.co

If someone has a direct contact to someone from the committee please forward them this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Did they write anything up?
- vgel 4y ago
  tl;dw: It's hard to get SBF to admit to fraud involving Alameda because he can fall back on the excuse that he wasn't the CEO and didn't know what was happening (even though there's every chance he actually did). So the youtuber hit him with a more targeted question: if FTX guarantees deposits are not traded, why were deposits not able to be withdrawn -- where did they go? He gets SBF to admit that they were commingling regular deposits with funds from customers doing riskier things like margin trading, and during the run those riskier users withdrew funds that should have been deposits that were set aside in a separate pool. That exposed regular depositors to risk contrary to what was laid out in the TOS. SBF gets mad and lashes out.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Seems like he has been admitting this constantly, don't think this is a new scoop.
  - etothepii 4y ago
    CoffeeZilla has done a really great job of following up with this line of questioning but on a technical point I am not sure that this gets him where he thinks it does. From what I have seen I do not think that FTX held itself out to formally be a "segregated accounts company" and the example CoffeeZilla uses of a bank is a bad example because that is exactly how banks operate. i.e. the problem with FTX was that they informally held themselves out to be a segregated accounts company but formally operated like a bank on a first-come-first-served basis.
TechBro8615 4y ago
Here [0] is the current membership of the committee (note it will change in 2023). I don't expect too many tough questions. [0] https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-membership.htm https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-membersh...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > don't expect too many tough questions Sounds like he finally got some good advice: he's testifying in the House but not the Senate.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > I don't expect too many tough questions. Wanna bet? He's super unpopular across the aisle and politicians are quick to turn on donors if they are dead in the water.
  - zeven7 4y ago
    I'm not so sure he's dead in the water as a future donor. There is $8 billion missing. I think it's likely most of it is gone in the sense of irrecoverable by SBF, but with the amount he was moving around it wouldn't be hard to drop $100 million here, $40 million there. That's not to mention the $300 million he cashed out in the last FTX funding round and the $1 billion personal loan he took from FTX, neither of which I've seen addressed yet as to where that money is now.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      He's not going to be donating $100 million here or there to these politicians. They would not accept his donations, he is politically the kiss of death. He likely does not even have the $8 billion.
      - zeven7 4y ago
        > They would not accept his donations, he is politically the kiss of death. I'm not going to address this part, which is the main point of your message. You might be right, I really don't know how political money moves, especially "dark money" and whatnot. I'll address the other parts to clarify because I think there were a couple minor points of confusion. > He's not going to be donating $100 million here or there to these politicians. The $100 million here, $40 million there I spoke of was him dropping money in accounts / crypto wallets controlled by himself. I'm saying I think he still has a lot of money, and from what I understand money can buy influence. You might be right that his money cannot buy influence on Capital Hill anymore. But I do think he still has a lot of money. > He likely does not even have the $8 billion. No, I definitely don't think he has $8 billion. Clearly a lot of that was lost. But I do think there's good reason to believe he has access to money in the order of $100 million - $1 billion while he's trying to claim he only has $100k left.
invisible 4y ago
Not to defend SBF or suggest he did anything correct, but isn't that _negligence_? Given that the factors of the negligence benefited their operations, it still may be charged as fraud and he may be guilty in court.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Couldn't anyone committing fraud just claim negligence? I'd imagine it is pretty common for people doing fraud to try to cover it with negligence, like not keeping records of money going "missing"

If someone has a direct contact to someone from the committee please forward them this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Did they write anything up?

vgel 4y ago
tl;dw: It's hard to get SBF to admit to fraud involving Alameda because he can fall back on the excuse that he wasn't the CEO and didn't know what was happening (even though there's every chance he actually did). So the youtuber hit him with a more targeted question: if FTX guarantees deposits are not traded, why were deposits not able to be withdrawn -- where did they go? He gets SBF to admit that they were commingling regular deposits with funds from customers doing riskier things like margin trading, and during the run those riskier users withdrew funds that should have been deposits that were set aside in a separate pool. That exposed regular depositors to risk contrary to what was laid out in the TOS. SBF gets mad and lashes out.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Seems like he has been admitting this constantly, don't think this is a new scoop.
- etothepii 4y ago
  CoffeeZilla has done a really great job of following up with this line of questioning but on a technical point I am not sure that this gets him where he thinks it does. From what I have seen I do not think that FTX held itself out to formally be a "segregated accounts company" and the example CoffeeZilla uses of a bank is a bad example because that is exactly how banks operate. i.e. the problem with FTX was that they informally held themselves out to be a segregated accounts company but formally operated like a bank on a first-come-first-served basis.

TechBro8615 4y ago

Here [0] is the current membership of the committee (note it will change in 2023). I don't expect too many tough questions. [0] https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-membership.htm https://financialservices.house.gov/about/committee-membersh...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> don't expect too many tough questions Sounds like he finally got some good advice: he's testifying in the House but not the Senate.
whimsicalism 4y ago
> I don't expect too many tough questions. Wanna bet? He's super unpopular across the aisle and politicians are quick to turn on donors if they are dead in the water.
- zeven7 4y ago
  I'm not so sure he's dead in the water as a future donor. There is $8 billion missing. I think it's likely most of it is gone in the sense of irrecoverable by SBF, but with the amount he was moving around it wouldn't be hard to drop $100 million here, $40 million there. That's not to mention the $300 million he cashed out in the last FTX funding round and the $1 billion personal loan he took from FTX, neither of which I've seen addressed yet as to where that money is now.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    He's not going to be donating $100 million here or there to these politicians. They would not accept his donations, he is politically the kiss of death. He likely does not even have the $8 billion.
    - zeven7 4y ago
      > They would not accept his donations, he is politically the kiss of death. I'm not going to address this part, which is the main point of your message. You might be right, I really don't know how political money moves, especially "dark money" and whatnot. I'll address the other parts to clarify because I think there were a couple minor points of confusion. > He's not going to be donating $100 million here or there to these politicians. The $100 million here, $40 million there I spoke of was him dropping money in accounts / crypto wallets controlled by himself. I'm saying I think he still has a lot of money, and from what I understand money can buy influence. You might be right that his money cannot buy influence on Capital Hill anymore. But I do think he still has a lot of money. > He likely does not even have the $8 billion. No, I definitely don't think he has $8 billion. Clearly a lot of that was lost. But I do think there's good reason to believe he has access to money in the order of $100 million - $1 billion while he's trying to claim he only has $100k left.

invisible 4y ago

Not to defend SBF or suggest he did anything correct, but isn't that _negligence_? Given that the factors of the negligence benefited their operations, it still may be charged as fraud and he may be guilty in court.

encryptluks2 4y ago
Couldn't anyone committing fraud just claim negligence? I'd imagine it is pretty common for people doing fraud to try to cover it with negligence, like not keeping records of money going "missing"