3 ms·

Sorry, was FTX a florist? I'm confused by your remark. Can you show some evidence that FTX was selling flowers, and that they had been using customer deposits f

by mvdtnz 3y ago

Sorry, was FTX a florist? I'm confused by your remark. Can you show some evidence that FTX was selling flowers, and that they had been using customer deposits for flowers on business expenses?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
It’s an analogy. Lending out—or even spending on working capital—customer deposits isn’t necessarily illegal. The context is what makes it fraud or business as usual.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  And the context is that FTX is not taking deposits for flowers, they are purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf, so your florist analogy makes absolutely no sense.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > they are purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf, so your florist analogy makes absolutely no sense No, they were accepting customers' cash in exchange for something undefined. Crypto being unregulated, we can conclusively say that something was not "purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf." FTX is, in many respects, more like a florist than a financial firm. Certainly for purposes of this case. (My florist's books are better organized.)
    - junofan 3y ago
      Nope, their TOS prohibited commingling. An LLC isn’t a license for fraud requiring government regulation.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > their TOS prohibited commingling One, it's unclear if that's criminal commingling versus breach of contract by FTX. Two, that's what I mean--absent additional representations, the lending out of customer deposits on its own does not constitute fraud or even anything illegal. That's the point of the comparison to a florist. In terms of consumer protections, my deposit with my florist is about (albeit not precisely) on par with customers' at FTX's. This is what you get when you stick your finger to the regulated system and put your money outside it.
quadcore 3y ago
Bankman-Fried lying about it does. Which I understand as, it's gota be determined the extent of the lying to determine the extent of the fraud ; some you-didnt-read-the-contract-well-enough responsability may incumb on the customer(s). holding assets on their customers' behalf Who said he was, him? Of course Im playing devil's advocate here to illustrate the logic of the law as presented by our friend here.

by mvdtnz 3y ago

Sorry, was FTX a florist? I'm confused by your remark. Can you show some evidence that FTX was selling flowers, and that they had been using customer deposits for flowers on business expenses?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

It’s an analogy. Lending out—or even spending on working capital—customer deposits isn’t necessarily illegal. The context is what makes it fraud or business as usual.

mvdtnz 3y ago
And the context is that FTX is not taking deposits for flowers, they are purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf, so your florist analogy makes absolutely no sense.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they are purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf, so your florist analogy makes absolutely no sense No, they were accepting customers' cash in exchange for something undefined. Crypto being unregulated, we can conclusively say that something was not "purchasing and holding assets on their customers' behalf." FTX is, in many respects, more like a florist than a financial firm. Certainly for purposes of this case. (My florist's books are better organized.)
  - junofan 3y ago
    Nope, their TOS prohibited commingling. An LLC isn’t a license for fraud requiring government regulation.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > their TOS prohibited commingling One, it's unclear if that's criminal commingling versus breach of contract by FTX. Two, that's what I mean--absent additional representations, the lending out of customer deposits on its own does not constitute fraud or even anything illegal. That's the point of the comparison to a florist. In terms of consumer protections, my deposit with my florist is about (albeit not precisely) on par with customers' at FTX's. This is what you get when you stick your finger to the regulated system and put your money outside it.

quadcore 3y ago

Bankman-Fried lying about it does. Which I understand as, it's gota be determined the extent of the lying to determine the extent of the fraud ; some you-didnt-read-the-contract-well-enough responsability may incumb on the customer(s). holding assets on their customers' behalf Who said he was, him? Of course Im playing devil's advocate here to illustrate the logic of the law as presented by our friend here.