26 ms·

Inevitable, but a lot of talking heads used the delay after FTX's collapse to sow doubt about corruption, media failure, etc. Feds were probably gathering evid

Inevitable, but a lot of talking heads used the delay after FTX's collapse to sow doubt about corruption, media failure, etc. Feds were probably gathering evidence from Day 1, and the restructuring CEO seems to have found it: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20221213/115246/HHRG-117-BA00-Wstate-RayJ-20221213.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20221213/115246/HHRG...

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
FWIW, most of the presige media (NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ) have been running puff pieces which parrot SBF's claims of ignorance without much if any fact checking or investigation.
- object-a 4y ago
  I'm not sure reporting that Alameda + FTX had little to no financial controls, terrible accounting, and unaccounted for deposits is really puffery, unless you stretch the definition. And I've seen stories about SBF spending FTX money on personal loans and Bahamas real estate all over the legacy media. Even the restructuring CEO couldn't account for all the lost funds until recently
  - hgdfhgdfhgdf 4y ago
    Coindesk said this about The New York Times' interview with SBF after the collapse: "Yaffe-Bellany says Bankman-Fried stayed on the line for over an hour – and yet there are no direct quotes concerning the conflict of interest between FTX and Alameda, neither a confirmation or denial that SBF illegally commingled funds between the two or further admissions of guilt. There's little sense SBF, who stepped down from the exchange, is taking responsibility for the situation. But, what, you want SBF to perjure himself? It’s a shame that Yaffe-Bellany wrote about Bankman-Fried’s cryptic Twitter thread, rather than the tweets he has been deleting. It sucks we know nothing more about the Bahamian withdrawals FTX opened, claiming it was at the behest of the island nation’s securities regulator – which the agency debunked."
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      Somebody quoted further up: > The NYT profiles I've seen is pretty clear that Alameda and FTX were mingling customer funds, that he refused to answer questions about the handling of funds, and that he was under investigation. >> But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship. OK no quote, but if there's no information why should they quote three repeated "no comments"? If he did not answer the question there's nothing quotable there, that doesn't make it a puff piece. Maybe coinbase has political motivation to call reporting from certain media puff pieces?
- themitigating 4y ago
  Can you show an example of one article that is a puff piece?
  - adasdasdas 4y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-crypto-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
    - object-a 4y ago
      This article reports on: - commingling of funds between Alameda and FTX - conflicts of interest between the two, including SBF's relationship with the CEO - use of customer deposits to pay off loans for Alameda - that FTX and SBF are under investigation
      - adasdasdas 4y ago
        It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage. If you want to compare tone, you can look up any NYT article on FB https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc. If you want something specific to compare, just take a look at the headline/subtitle which about as far as most people get in any article.
        jhugo 4y ago
        > It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage. That's because describing it as "deliberate fraud" would require evidence of intent that they don't have. I agree that it's likely the case, but I wouldn't expect a journalist to state it as fact at this point.
        4y ago
- acdha 4y ago
  Do you have specific examples? All of the organizations you mentioned have covered his companies in very unflattering terms.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  The Times and Washington Post perhaps but I haven't seen any puff pieces from WSJ about SBF. In fact quite the opposite. The WSJ seems to be decidedly anti-crypto. The most recent piece concerning him before this announcement was titled: "The Rise and Fall of Respectability": https://archive.vn/AiEEO#selection-109.5-109.40 https://archive.vn/AiEEO#selection-109.5-109.40
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  WSJ did? Citation? They seemed super critical from what i saw.
hrdwdmrbl 4y ago
I skimmed the entire document and didn’t see any new information and in particular i didn’t see any evidence of a particular crime that could be pinned on SBF, other than negligence. (I’m sure he’s guilty of many crimes, i just didn’t see new evidence in this document)
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  This is his intro statement to the Congressional Committee. One wouldn't expect that it has much new, and given his role as "repo man", it wouldn't be focused on SBF's specific crimes, but on what he can do now to clean it up. But the tone is absolutely damning and it's clear that he is saying that illegal shit went on.
papichulo4 4y ago
How/why is this dated December 13, 2022?
- cyral 4y ago
  It's the testimony they are going to read tomorrow. It's a good idea to have something prepared so you don't stumble over yourself like SBF is everytime he speaks.
- xena 4y ago
  The document is from the future, obviously.
  - russdill 4y ago
    His attendance can certainly still be arranged.
- michaericalribo 4y ago
  It’s a statement submitted to the record for a Congressional hearing tomorrow. Seems SBF won’t be attending after all…

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

FWIW, most of the presige media (NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ) have been running puff pieces which parrot SBF's claims of ignorance without much if any fact checking or investigation.

object-a 4y ago
I'm not sure reporting that Alameda + FTX had little to no financial controls, terrible accounting, and unaccounted for deposits is really puffery, unless you stretch the definition. And I've seen stories about SBF spending FTX money on personal loans and Bahamas real estate all over the legacy media. Even the restructuring CEO couldn't account for all the lost funds until recently
- hgdfhgdfhgdf 4y ago
  Coindesk said this about The New York Times' interview with SBF after the collapse: "Yaffe-Bellany says Bankman-Fried stayed on the line for over an hour – and yet there are no direct quotes concerning the conflict of interest between FTX and Alameda, neither a confirmation or denial that SBF illegally commingled funds between the two or further admissions of guilt. There's little sense SBF, who stepped down from the exchange, is taking responsibility for the situation. But, what, you want SBF to perjure himself? It’s a shame that Yaffe-Bellany wrote about Bankman-Fried’s cryptic Twitter thread, rather than the tweets he has been deleting. It sucks we know nothing more about the Bahamian withdrawals FTX opened, claiming it was at the behest of the island nation’s securities regulator – which the agency debunked."
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Somebody quoted further up: > The NYT profiles I've seen is pretty clear that Alameda and FTX were mingling customer funds, that he refused to answer questions about the handling of funds, and that he was under investigation. >> But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship. OK no quote, but if there's no information why should they quote three repeated "no comments"? If he did not answer the question there's nothing quotable there, that doesn't make it a puff piece. Maybe coinbase has political motivation to call reporting from certain media puff pieces?
themitigating 4y ago
Can you show an example of one article that is a puff piece?
- adasdasdas 4y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-crypto-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
  - object-a 4y ago
    This article reports on: - commingling of funds between Alameda and FTX - conflicts of interest between the two, including SBF's relationship with the CEO - use of customer deposits to pay off loans for Alameda - that FTX and SBF are under investigation
    - adasdasdas 4y ago
      It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage. If you want to compare tone, you can look up any NYT article on FB https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc. If you want something specific to compare, just take a look at the headline/subtitle which about as far as most people get in any article.
      - jhugo 4y ago
        > It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage. That's because describing it as "deliberate fraud" would require evidence of intent that they don't have. I agree that it's likely the case, but I wouldn't expect a journalist to state it as fact at this point.
        4y ago
acdha 4y ago
Do you have specific examples? All of the organizations you mentioned have covered his companies in very unflattering terms.
bogomipz 4y ago
The Times and Washington Post perhaps but I haven't seen any puff pieces from WSJ about SBF. In fact quite the opposite. The WSJ seems to be decidedly anti-crypto. The most recent piece concerning him before this announcement was titled: "The Rise and Fall of Respectability": https://archive.vn/AiEEO#selection-109.5-109.40 https://archive.vn/AiEEO#selection-109.5-109.40
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjtheblunt 4y ago
WSJ did? Citation? They seemed super critical from what i saw.

hrdwdmrbl 4y ago

I skimmed the entire document and didn’t see any new information and in particular i didn’t see any evidence of a particular crime that could be pinned on SBF, other than negligence. (I’m sure he’s guilty of many crimes, i just didn’t see new evidence in this document)

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
This is his intro statement to the Congressional Committee. One wouldn't expect that it has much new, and given his role as "repo man", it wouldn't be focused on SBF's specific crimes, but on what he can do now to clean it up. But the tone is absolutely damning and it's clear that he is saying that illegal shit went on.

papichulo4 4y ago

How/why is this dated December 13, 2022?

cyral 4y ago
It's the testimony they are going to read tomorrow. It's a good idea to have something prepared so you don't stumble over yourself like SBF is everytime he speaks.
xena 4y ago
The document is from the future, obviously.
- russdill 4y ago
  His attendance can certainly still be arranged.
michaericalribo 4y ago
It’s a statement submitted to the record for a Congressional hearing tomorrow. Seems SBF won’t be attending after all…