5 ms·

Why not? He did plenty more harm to plenty more people than many others who had to wait in jail for their trial. I think it's perfectly rational to be upset th

Why not? He did plenty more harm to plenty more people than many others who had to wait in jail for their trial. I think it's perfectly rational to be upset that someone who destroyed billions in wealth is treated more kindly by the justice system than than people who've done far less damage.

maxbond 4y ago
I agree the inequity of the justice system is terrible. I disagree with what I perceive as calls for his head.
- fanso99 4y ago
  You are intentionally exaggerating this situation. People are calling for him to be jailed — a perfectly reasonable call.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Intentionally? Are you proposing I have some kind of agenda, or just that I'm being willful in some way? This is my honest read of the situation, you're welcome to disagree. I have no agenda, only an opinion.
    - fanso99 4y ago
      Intentional in the sense that you understand that you are exaggerating and still repeatedly do it. No one is calling for him to be flogged or beheaded in front of the White House. Jailing a fugitive, a flight risk financial scammer is not unreasonable. He was extremely wealthy at one point and so there is a chance he has enough money stashed somewhere to make fleeing a possibility. In addition, defrauding thousands if not millions of people is a heinous crime, for which the perpetrator should not be given any easy treatment. When we ("the society") catch a serial killer, we agree that letting them go free on a negligible bail and an IOU note is not wise.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        No, I am not exaggerating while secretly agreeing with you or something. That it may interpretation; you are free to disagree with it, but it's my sincere interpretation. Please avoid supposition about my mind state and intentions, if you want to know something about those subjects, just ask. We deny bail to serial killers to avoid putting lives at risk, not because they're extra guilty. There's no indication SBF is a danger to anyone around him, and the conditions of his bail include counseling in case he's a danger to himself. Maybe he does have a house in Argentina with a stack of unmarked bills, who knows, but that is that the bond and the ankle monitor are for.
ethanbond 4y ago
Did he destroy billions in wealth? Seems to me that he made chart go up for no reason and everyone was perfectly happy with that, and when chart went down for the same reasons (i.e. fraud/no legitimate reason) then everyone is upset about it. If people are upset about lesser offenses getting handled more aggressively, they should spend some time lobbying for lesser offenses to get handled less aggressively.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  He didn't destroy money, he transferred it from whoever trusted him to the people he bought things from or made losing trades with on the market. He destroyed wealth by directing it away from honest business, and that's very hard to quantify the effects of. If I had to guess how he justifies it all in his head, it's that he was taking money away from the financial sector and giving it to the Future Fund. This is an absolute guess because I don't know, but I think a lot of it was average joe crypto-curious investors having their money stolen and then given to the smart financial firms who were on the winning side of his secret bad bets. There may also have been some pension fund involvement because they seem to be caught up in this stuff on a regular basis. (Because of the way bonuses work, managers can skim off the top by investing in known Ponzi schemes and taking the credit for the 20% returns. They know they're not going to have to pay those bonuses back when they're inevitably "surprised." This happened with Madoff and was a big contributor to his success.)
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Right, so he stole $x and "destroyed" $y. My position is that the theft is real and the destruction is not.
- loeg 4y ago
  Yes, he destroyed (or stole) billions in customer deposits.
- DennisP 4y ago
  This has nothing to do with the chart. FTX terms of service promised that if customers had a simple account, without signing up for higher-risk stuff, then FTX would hold their full assets at all times without putting them at risk. Then SBF allegedly moved those assets over to Alameda for risky trades, and also pulled some out to buy fancy houses.

maxbond 4y ago

I agree the inequity of the justice system is terrible. I disagree with what I perceive as calls for his head.

fanso99 4y ago
You are intentionally exaggerating this situation. People are calling for him to be jailed — a perfectly reasonable call.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Intentionally? Are you proposing I have some kind of agenda, or just that I'm being willful in some way? This is my honest read of the situation, you're welcome to disagree. I have no agenda, only an opinion.
  - fanso99 4y ago
    Intentional in the sense that you understand that you are exaggerating and still repeatedly do it. No one is calling for him to be flogged or beheaded in front of the White House. Jailing a fugitive, a flight risk financial scammer is not unreasonable. He was extremely wealthy at one point and so there is a chance he has enough money stashed somewhere to make fleeing a possibility. In addition, defrauding thousands if not millions of people is a heinous crime, for which the perpetrator should not be given any easy treatment. When we ("the society") catch a serial killer, we agree that letting them go free on a negligible bail and an IOU note is not wise.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      No, I am not exaggerating while secretly agreeing with you or something. That it may interpretation; you are free to disagree with it, but it's my sincere interpretation. Please avoid supposition about my mind state and intentions, if you want to know something about those subjects, just ask. We deny bail to serial killers to avoid putting lives at risk, not because they're extra guilty. There's no indication SBF is a danger to anyone around him, and the conditions of his bail include counseling in case he's a danger to himself. Maybe he does have a house in Argentina with a stack of unmarked bills, who knows, but that is that the bond and the ankle monitor are for.

ethanbond 4y ago

Did he destroy billions in wealth? Seems to me that he made chart go up for no reason and everyone was perfectly happy with that, and when chart went down for the same reasons (i.e. fraud/no legitimate reason) then everyone is upset about it. If people are upset about lesser offenses getting handled more aggressively, they should spend some time lobbying for lesser offenses to get handled less aggressively.

whatshisface 4y ago
He didn't destroy money, he transferred it from whoever trusted him to the people he bought things from or made losing trades with on the market. He destroyed wealth by directing it away from honest business, and that's very hard to quantify the effects of. If I had to guess how he justifies it all in his head, it's that he was taking money away from the financial sector and giving it to the Future Fund. This is an absolute guess because I don't know, but I think a lot of it was average joe crypto-curious investors having their money stolen and then given to the smart financial firms who were on the winning side of his secret bad bets. There may also have been some pension fund involvement because they seem to be caught up in this stuff on a regular basis. (Because of the way bonuses work, managers can skim off the top by investing in known Ponzi schemes and taking the credit for the 20% returns. They know they're not going to have to pay those bonuses back when they're inevitably "surprised." This happened with Madoff and was a big contributor to his success.)
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Right, so he stole $x and "destroyed" $y. My position is that the theft is real and the destruction is not.
loeg 4y ago
Yes, he destroyed (or stole) billions in customer deposits.
DennisP 4y ago
This has nothing to do with the chart. FTX terms of service promised that if customers had a simple account, without signing up for higher-risk stuff, then FTX would hold their full assets at all times without putting them at risk. Then SBF allegedly moved those assets over to Alameda for risky trades, and also pulled some out to buy fancy houses.