3 ms·

Why should you get more "credit" for stealing[1] from someone to make an investment that turns out to be good, versus stealing from someone to fund strippers an

Why should you get more "credit" for stealing[1] from someone to make an investment that turns out to be good, versus stealing from someone to fund strippers and cocaine? You still took the same amount from the person. [1] For clarity, what SBF did is not, I realize, theft. Just an example.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I have no idea what you mean by "credit". I'm talking about recognition that someone was able to make a correct prediction or calculation. If someone is a mass murderer but invents cold fusion, You can hold both facts to be true. They made a great scientific discovery and that they were a killer. The facts are not in competition. SBF may have had a good read on the market, and a good eye for investments. He may also be a criminal. Humans have multiple dimensions, so both can be true.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  The root assumption in some of this thread is that "Well, should SBF get a lighter sentence because his victims can be made whole?" That's the "credit" part. No, he shouldn't. Crypto gains after the seizure of FTX funds are not of his doing, and shouldn't benefit him. Similarly, an argument can be made that he shouldn't necessarily have had access to some of the funds that he used for investment. I'm not denying (nor much caring) that he has made some good investment choices.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The comment I responded to was: >And even more, it was luck and 'fortune' that this is the case now. It's nothing of SBF's doing. They're only able to be made whole because of the market. Crypto could easily have crashed. And then...? If you arent addressing this point, you are in the wrong part of the threaded conversation.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Right. I wrote that. What I am saying: SBF should not be able to get his sentence reduced because he made good investments with ill-gotten funds. Whether he is capable of that or not is immaterial. The market continued to rise after he ceased to be involved with those investments. Why should he reap the benefit of good fortune (indirectly, in reducing his sentence) because of that rise? It had nothing to do with his intent for that money - his intent was generally to enrich himself, family and friends, and if others got the leftovers, lucky for them. Hence the three private jets he owned. Saying "well, he made some good decisions so there's more to pay people back with, so he should get less jailtime" is BS, to me.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        all I am saying is credit where credit is due. I think that it is fair to recognize that SBF/FTX selected some wise investments, and I dont think that was all pure luck. Im not trying to make any wild claim beyond that about morality, you are the one bringing that into it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I have no idea what you mean by "credit". I'm talking about recognition that someone was able to make a correct prediction or calculation. If someone is a mass murderer but invents cold fusion, You can hold both facts to be true. They made a great scientific discovery and that they were a killer. The facts are not in competition. SBF may have had a good read on the market, and a good eye for investments. He may also be a criminal. Humans have multiple dimensions, so both can be true.

FireBeyond 3y ago
The root assumption in some of this thread is that "Well, should SBF get a lighter sentence because his victims can be made whole?" That's the "credit" part. No, he shouldn't. Crypto gains after the seizure of FTX funds are not of his doing, and shouldn't benefit him. Similarly, an argument can be made that he shouldn't necessarily have had access to some of the funds that he used for investment. I'm not denying (nor much caring) that he has made some good investment choices.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The comment I responded to was: >And even more, it was luck and 'fortune' that this is the case now. It's nothing of SBF's doing. They're only able to be made whole because of the market. Crypto could easily have crashed. And then...? If you arent addressing this point, you are in the wrong part of the threaded conversation.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Right. I wrote that. What I am saying: SBF should not be able to get his sentence reduced because he made good investments with ill-gotten funds. Whether he is capable of that or not is immaterial. The market continued to rise after he ceased to be involved with those investments. Why should he reap the benefit of good fortune (indirectly, in reducing his sentence) because of that rise? It had nothing to do with his intent for that money - his intent was generally to enrich himself, family and friends, and if others got the leftovers, lucky for them. Hence the three private jets he owned. Saying "well, he made some good decisions so there's more to pay people back with, so he should get less jailtime" is BS, to me.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      all I am saying is credit where credit is due. I think that it is fair to recognize that SBF/FTX selected some wise investments, and I dont think that was all pure luck. Im not trying to make any wild claim beyond that about morality, you are the one bringing that into it.