4 ms·

If the loss was due to the speculative asset going the unexpected direction sure. But here was fraud. Would you say the same if a pension fund ran with your re

• acdha 3y ago
  Yes, it’s fraud but it was also in a system which intentionally was set up outside of the normal protections against fraud. The relationship between Alameda and FTX wouldn’t have been allowed for a traditional finance company, for example. He’s a crook and I’m not defending him in any way but at some level this is like buying a Rolex off of a guy in Times Square and then being surprised that it’s not real.
  • hirako2000 3y ago
    Enron? I mean we go on and on. Other threads in here went into that circle. I doubt those who think that in the end victims are partly responsible as there are things they could have done differently, would change their mind.
    • acdha 3y ago
      Enron is an interesting example: first, you had to go back a quarter of a century for the example whereas that kind of thing happens routinely in the cryptocurrency space, and the response wasn’t just to shrug but to pass stricter regulations (Sarbanes-Oxley) to prevent it from happening again. Remember, the claim isn’t that the traditional finance world is without problems but rather that people who deliberately seek out high-risk investments do share some responsibility when those fail. Someone who trusted Enron’s public audit reports was more comprehensively failed than someone who sought out a company specifically incorporated in the Bahamas to avoid compliance with US regulations!