5 ms·

SBF only had paper wealth. His political donations totaled tens of millions (iirc). On this scale that's a rounding error. To paraphrase Chris Rock, SBF was ri

SBF only had paper wealth. His political donations totaled tens of millions (iirc). On this scale that's a rounding error. To paraphrase Chris Rock, SBF was rich, but Charlie Munger is wealthy.

chrisco255 4y ago
He was a highly privileged kid, son of Stanford professors / attorneys, worked for Jane Street, raised a couple billion in capital and would have stayed a billionaire if he just hadn't stolen from his customers. FTX by itself was worth billions without the degenerate Alameda trading strategies being deployed against their own clients.
- largepeepee 4y ago
  Problem is Alameda was needed by FTX as a market maker. Alameda was over 50% of the trades and often the counterparty of the others. It is a scam in the end, FTX will die without Alameda.
ideamotor 4y ago
This debate makes zero sense. You are both arguing where some extremely binary line is placed in society. If this how you all think about everything?
hinkley 4y ago
A really cynical view of the world is that the rags to riches story is something the power structure tolerates because it 1) brings in a little fresh blood to replace families that self destruct and to give them something else to gossip about and 2) the token successes are an opiate for the masses. The moment they lose all hope head will roll. Most days I try not to think this way but some days it’s difficult to avoid. Someone else said the problem was that SBF stole from his customers. And while it’s true that this is often sufficient to bring you down, it’s often only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly. He’s being made an example.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly SBF stole nothing meaningful from anyone powerful.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    He did something worse: he embarrassed them.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > he embarrassed them Who is “them”? There is no serious power embarrassed by FTX. The seriously powerful never got close enough to be tarnished.
      - richbell 4y ago
        I think the closest you'd get is Larry David, Kevin O'Leary, and Tom Brady. Wealthy but definitely not anyone of serious power or consequence.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        That may be true, but perception matters, and a lot of virtual ink has been spent on his political ties, donations, contributions to regulation, and meetings with government officials, all the way up to the White House. Powerful people are acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him The point being they’re making and keeping that distance. This conspiracy theory, that SBF is facing consequences only because he sort of maybe embarrassed Ricchetti, has no legs to stand on.
        4y ago

SBF only had paper wealth. His political donations totaled tens of millions (iirc). On this scale that's a rounding error. To paraphrase Chris Rock, SBF was rich, but Charlie Munger is wealthy.

chrisco255 4y ago

He was a highly privileged kid, son of Stanford professors / attorneys, worked for Jane Street, raised a couple billion in capital and would have stayed a billionaire if he just hadn't stolen from his customers. FTX by itself was worth billions without the degenerate Alameda trading strategies being deployed against their own clients.

largepeepee 4y ago
Problem is Alameda was needed by FTX as a market maker. Alameda was over 50% of the trades and often the counterparty of the others. It is a scam in the end, FTX will die without Alameda.

ideamotor 4y ago

This debate makes zero sense. You are both arguing where some extremely binary line is placed in society. If this how you all think about everything?

hinkley 4y ago

A really cynical view of the world is that the rags to riches story is something the power structure tolerates because it 1) brings in a little fresh blood to replace families that self destruct and to give them something else to gossip about and 2) the token successes are an opiate for the masses. The moment they lose all hope head will roll. Most days I try not to think this way but some days it’s difficult to avoid. Someone else said the problem was that SBF stole from his customers. And while it’s true that this is often sufficient to bring you down, it’s often only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly. He’s being made an example.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly SBF stole nothing meaningful from anyone powerful.
- leereeves 4y ago
  He did something worse: he embarrassed them.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > he embarrassed them Who is “them”? There is no serious power embarrassed by FTX. The seriously powerful never got close enough to be tarnished.
    - richbell 4y ago
      I think the closest you'd get is Larry David, Kevin O'Leary, and Tom Brady. Wealthy but definitely not anyone of serious power or consequence.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      That may be true, but perception matters, and a lot of virtual ink has been spent on his political ties, donations, contributions to regulation, and meetings with government officials, all the way up to the White House. Powerful people are acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him The point being they’re making and keeping that distance. This conspiracy theory, that SBF is facing consequences only because he sort of maybe embarrassed Ricchetti, has no legs to stand on.
        4y ago