3 ms·

Yeah, I agree. This should fall under “caveat emptor”. Everyone using unregulated exchanges (which IMO should be an option for everyone) should recognize that

by sneak 3y ago

Yeah, I agree. This should fall under “caveat emptor”. Everyone using unregulated exchanges (which IMO should be an option for everyone) should recognize that they are subject to additional risks (and benefits). The government shouldn’t outlaw free climbing either. It’s your own fault if you treat a bunch of foolish kids with millions of dollars the same way you would an onshore FDIC-insured regulated bank. Canada Bill Jones would like a word.

i1856511 3y ago
I agree with you as well, but this is a major example of how, despite this ideal, something like this can sweep up so many people that would otherwise never interact with a system like this. People who don't know who SBF is, never heard of Hacker News, who don't understand crypto, getting convinced to put money into this by, say, a younger relative. It is a real side-effect of this thing existing on this scale on a planet populated by humans. People don't go mass free-climbing because it isn't something you do by accident. The danger is obvious. But this danger is abstract, and the ease of entering this type of system can happen with just a few clicks from the comfort of your home. And getting dollar signs in your eyes is a very psychologically influential pull.
bronson 3y ago
Free climbing in populated areas is outlawed (and should be). Try climbing your nearest skyscraper and see how it goes. Similarly, torching your money on some random shitcoin isn't outlawed. But when they enter populated areas, renaming stadiums and hiring celebrities to try to trick the masses, the rules change.
GCA10 3y ago
It's worth noting that a huge amount of the government's case involved evidence that SBF and team were buying lavish oceanfront condos, paying superstar athletes for weird TV commercials, etc. This was actually a tiny slice of the overall financial mischief at FTX. But it told well in front of a jury. And it reinforced a big point that prosecutors keep wanting to make, as publicly as possible. "Don't take the customers' money to live large on your thefts!" That's a message that they want countless bookkeepers, financial planners, etc. to hear, again and again. So, yes, they wanted to make an example out of SBF. The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of a jury. But the clueless or duped crypto-trading clients got a free bailout anyway. It came on the back of a prosecution that was largely intended to be a public slapdown of a guy committing lifestyle offenses with other people's money.
- trogdor 3y ago
  > The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of jury. What evidence do you have of this? Jury trials frequently involve ‘complicated gyrations’ — that’s what expert testimony is for.
  - GCA10 3y ago
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jury-needed-to-convict-sam-bankman-fried.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jur...
    - trogdor 3y ago
      The article doesn’t say that anything was too complex to put in front of the jury. It says that prosecutors presented the story as a straightforward case of fraud. >The key at trial, aside from the multiple cooperators, was the way in which prosecutors simplified the case and tried it as a garden-variety fraud instead of as a complex crypto scheme.
creaturemachine 3y ago
Climbing pedant checking in. I think the type of climbing you're referring to is free-solo, that is climbing alone with no partner or protection from falling. "Free climbing" is climbing using only hands and feet for upward progression but typically involves the use of protection (gear, ropes, and a partner) to save you in the event of a fall. It's called "free" because the climber does not use metal tools, hooks, pitons, or bolts for upward progression like in aid, ice, or alpine climbing.
- sneak 3y ago
  Luckily, you knew exactly what I meant.

by sneak 3y ago

i1856511 3y ago

I agree with you as well, but this is a major example of how, despite this ideal, something like this can sweep up so many people that would otherwise never interact with a system like this. People who don't know who SBF is, never heard of Hacker News, who don't understand crypto, getting convinced to put money into this by, say, a younger relative. It is a real side-effect of this thing existing on this scale on a planet populated by humans. People don't go mass free-climbing because it isn't something you do by accident. The danger is obvious. But this danger is abstract, and the ease of entering this type of system can happen with just a few clicks from the comfort of your home. And getting dollar signs in your eyes is a very psychologically influential pull.

bronson 3y ago

Free climbing in populated areas is outlawed (and should be). Try climbing your nearest skyscraper and see how it goes. Similarly, torching your money on some random shitcoin isn't outlawed. But when they enter populated areas, renaming stadiums and hiring celebrities to try to trick the masses, the rules change.

GCA10 3y ago

It's worth noting that a huge amount of the government's case involved evidence that SBF and team were buying lavish oceanfront condos, paying superstar athletes for weird TV commercials, etc. This was actually a tiny slice of the overall financial mischief at FTX. But it told well in front of a jury. And it reinforced a big point that prosecutors keep wanting to make, as publicly as possible. "Don't take the customers' money to live large on your thefts!" That's a message that they want countless bookkeepers, financial planners, etc. to hear, again and again. So, yes, they wanted to make an example out of SBF. The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of a jury. But the clueless or duped crypto-trading clients got a free bailout anyway. It came on the back of a prosecution that was largely intended to be a public slapdown of a guy committing lifestyle offenses with other people's money.

trogdor 3y ago
> The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of jury. What evidence do you have of this? Jury trials frequently involve ‘complicated gyrations’ — that’s what expert testimony is for.
- GCA10 3y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jury-needed-to-convict-sam-bankman-fried.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jur...
  - trogdor 3y ago
    The article doesn’t say that anything was too complex to put in front of the jury. It says that prosecutors presented the story as a straightforward case of fraud. >The key at trial, aside from the multiple cooperators, was the way in which prosecutors simplified the case and tried it as a garden-variety fraud instead of as a complex crypto scheme.

creaturemachine 3y ago

Climbing pedant checking in. I think the type of climbing you're referring to is free-solo, that is climbing alone with no partner or protection from falling. "Free climbing" is climbing using only hands and feet for upward progression but typically involves the use of protection (gear, ropes, and a partner) to save you in the event of a fall. It's called "free" because the climber does not use metal tools, hooks, pitons, or bolts for upward progression like in aid, ice, or alpine climbing.

sneak 3y ago
Luckily, you knew exactly what I meant.