3 ms·
The title highlighting the "skimming over" TOS seems a bit alarmist to me. I bet there are very rare CEOs who could even say that much. As a result my "we don
by foobarian 3y ago
The title highlighting the "skimming over" TOS seems a bit alarmist to me. I bet there are very rare CEOs who could even say that much.
As a result my "we don't like this guy so we'll talk up any minor negative thing we find" detectors start to go off. I think he just took money from the wrong people, kinda like Madoff.
- pb7 3y agoGood. Maybe we shouldn’t treat a billionaire fraudster with kiddie gloves.
- infecto 3y ago1) Not sure how we can take Madoff's ponzi to the level of "he just took money from the wrong people". 2) TOS in financial sectors are generally very well thought out and would not surprise me at the startup level that executive leadership should have a solid understanding of what it does. In this case the TOS in question would allow/disallow FTX the exchange from lending money to sister org Alameda. This seems like a pretty crucial thing that the CEO, SBF, should know.
- orionsbelt 3y agoAt the level of FTX's operations, I don't think Sam should have been expected to read the TOS at all. That said: 1. A CEO obviously should have a basic understanding of the rules on using customer assets regardless of whether he read the TOS. It's like Sam claiming he didn't know he had to pay taxes since he never read the tax code. 2. More importantly, when issues arise, a non-criminal organization would have called up legal and said "can we do this?", and waited for them to review the TOS, respond with an answer, and follow that. Sam seems to have purposefully avoided oversight, building out a Board, building out legal, sharing information, etc.
- infecto 3y agoAgree. I care less about the actual TOS and more that he has no idea how to answer the question around customer assets.