4 ms·
It's good that she did, because he played her for a sucker. He routed that entire massive fraud, which she may have barely understood (we'll see), through her a
by pessimizer 4y ago
It's good that she did, because he played her for a sucker. He routed that entire massive fraud, which she may have barely understood (we'll see), through her as the CEO of a fake company whose only purpose was to embezzle deposits from FTX customers.
- xdavidliu 4y agoI thought Alameda came first, before FTX. Also, the fraud was on the FTX side, not Alameda, hence it doesn't make sense for him to blame her for it?
- __derek__ 4y agoIsn't it a two-way fraud? Alameda defrauded FTX by knowingly providing worthless collateral for loans (FTT), which FTX fraudulently made using customer funds.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 4y agoShe's not stupid, don't downplay her intelligence. She absolutely had enough knowledge, education, and know how to see what was going on, and had every opportunity to get out. She didn't because, like most of the people involved, she thought she would be free and clear because line go up
- civopsec 4y ago> She's not stupid, don't downplay her intelligence. You say that. And yet. > because line go up
- low_tech_love 4y agoI don’t get your point. Why would you think she didn’t know?
- ls15 4y ago> she may have barely understood Mathematics degree. Both parents economists.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 323 4y agoShe's 28 and well educated. The "sucker" defense will not work for her.