3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNope, 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.