4 ms·

Maybe it will help people actually do their due diligence and demand more from the companies they invest in. The fact that there was apparently so little audit

Maybe it will help people actually do their due diligence and demand more from the companies they invest in. The fact that there was apparently so little auditing of certain things is … beyond me. However, the video does an analysis of the charges and so on.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Your first sentence: >Maybe it will help people actually do their due diligence and demand more from the companies they invest in. Does that refer to investors (like Sequoia Capital etc) who owned shares in ftx etc? Or to ordinary account holders who were just using ftx as a broker? I ask because those are two very different groups. And I think people's sympathies rest almost entirely with the second group...
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  The thought process was that had FTX share owners done their due diligence over the how many series of funding rounds FTX had, it would not have become that sort of behemoth, issues would have been caught immediately, and well, the little guy wouldn't have suffered the consequences. The little guy should also have done their due diligence with crypto though, and diversified their portfolios in terms of brokers. If you "play" with money, you should be prepared to lose it all.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    I agree completely. Legally the shareholders of FTX are well shielded by limited liability. But morally they managed to aid and abet huge fraud. People should have done their research before trusting FTX. But it is also very poor for Sequoia etc to have given FTX (and SBF himself) such strong endorsements with apparently zero actual knowledge of the business. Full disclosure: I am one of those little guys who learnt the hard way "not my keys, not my crypto". No excuses, I was dumb and lost my money.
superchroma 4y ago
No I disagree with the premise. The point of government is to do what is best for society even if it is not what is necessarily popular. We outlaw the use of certain chemicals despite their practicality for this reason, as an example. People may have an irrational appetite for risk in crypto drawn by outlandish stories of unlimited wealth, but government should see it for what it is: a way to do finance without playing by the rules of finance, and step in proactively. By acting after everything is over and investors are hurt, they have failed everyone and their mandate accordingly.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  I don't disagree with you, the investors referenced in my comments were the share owners more so than anyone else who should have done their DD in the early funding stages. What you describe and what I do are orthogonal.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Your first sentence: >Maybe it will help people actually do their due diligence and demand more from the companies they invest in. Does that refer to investors (like Sequoia Capital etc) who owned shares in ftx etc? Or to ordinary account holders who were just using ftx as a broker? I ask because those are two very different groups. And I think people's sympathies rest almost entirely with the second group...

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
The thought process was that had FTX share owners done their due diligence over the how many series of funding rounds FTX had, it would not have become that sort of behemoth, issues would have been caught immediately, and well, the little guy wouldn't have suffered the consequences. The little guy should also have done their due diligence with crypto though, and diversified their portfolios in terms of brokers. If you "play" with money, you should be prepared to lose it all.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I agree completely. Legally the shareholders of FTX are well shielded by limited liability. But morally they managed to aid and abet huge fraud. People should have done their research before trusting FTX. But it is also very poor for Sequoia etc to have given FTX (and SBF himself) such strong endorsements with apparently zero actual knowledge of the business. Full disclosure: I am one of those little guys who learnt the hard way "not my keys, not my crypto". No excuses, I was dumb and lost my money.

superchroma 4y ago

No I disagree with the premise. The point of government is to do what is best for society even if it is not what is necessarily popular. We outlaw the use of certain chemicals despite their practicality for this reason, as an example. People may have an irrational appetite for risk in crypto drawn by outlandish stories of unlimited wealth, but government should see it for what it is: a way to do finance without playing by the rules of finance, and step in proactively. By acting after everything is over and investors are hurt, they have failed everyone and their mandate accordingly.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
I don't disagree with you, the investors referenced in my comments were the share owners more so than anyone else who should have done their DD in the early funding stages. What you describe and what I do are orthogonal.