3 ms·

Not trying to defend or anything (what I read in those news on SBF doesn't cause any sympathy for him in me), just wondering - as the crimes committed here were

by trhway 3y ago

Not trying to defend or anything (what I read in those news on SBF doesn't cause any sympathy for him in me), just wondering - as the crimes committed here were committed in the open over some prolonged time, why those crimes weren't stopped by the law enforcement several years/billions (and decades of prison term) before that pretty late point? Kind of like with Madoff or 2008 - everybody knows that the things aren't kosher (and the professionals and the related law enforcement even know most of the details of how bad the things really are), yet let it go until it crashes - basically it looks like the main crime in such cases is the failure/crash itself not the cheating/scamming/etc. before it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> it looks like the main crime in such cases is the failure/crash itself not the cheating/scamming/etc. before it The stealing caused the crash.
- trhway 3y ago
  The question is why the stealing is allowed to go for that long and massive and pretty much in the open until it results in the crash.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > question is why the stealing is allowed to go for that long and massive and pretty much in the open before the crash FTX was unregulated. The people giving Bankman-Fried never bothered to ask questions, so there was literally nobody looking over his shoulder. Until the problems became apparent, it wasn’t anyone’s concern. Madoff is more complicated, but it remains that he ran a lightly-regulated private fund. (And the banks that looked the other way paid dearly for it.)
    - trhway 3y ago
      >FTX was unregulated. The people giving Bankman-Fried They were giving money either as donation - regulated, or as payment for services and goods - regulated, or as deposits - regulated, or as investment - regulated. Probably the only way it could have been unregulated if it were as gift, which it obviously wasn't. >he ran a lightly-regulated private fund. and everybody thought that he is "lightly" (if it can be applied to tens of billions of dollars) cheating like front-running or something like this, and they let him that "light cheating" for years and tens of billions of dollars until the crash.

by trhway 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> it looks like the main crime in such cases is the failure/crash itself not the cheating/scamming/etc. before it The stealing caused the crash.

trhway 3y ago
The question is why the stealing is allowed to go for that long and massive and pretty much in the open until it results in the crash.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > question is why the stealing is allowed to go for that long and massive and pretty much in the open before the crash FTX was unregulated. The people giving Bankman-Fried never bothered to ask questions, so there was literally nobody looking over his shoulder. Until the problems became apparent, it wasn’t anyone’s concern. Madoff is more complicated, but it remains that he ran a lightly-regulated private fund. (And the banks that looked the other way paid dearly for it.)
  - trhway 3y ago
    >FTX was unregulated. The people giving Bankman-Fried They were giving money either as donation - regulated, or as payment for services and goods - regulated, or as deposits - regulated, or as investment - regulated. Probably the only way it could have been unregulated if it were as gift, which it obviously wasn't. >he ran a lightly-regulated private fund. and everybody thought that he is "lightly" (if it can be applied to tens of billions of dollars) cheating like front-running or something like this, and they let him that "light cheating" for years and tens of billions of dollars until the crash.