[HN Gopher] FTX's ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
___________________________________________________________________
FTX's ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions
Author : pranshum
Score : 189 points
Date : 2022-11-24 16:12 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| classified wrote:
| The most efficient way to rob a bank is to own it.
| heythere22 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/jcmWQ
| abzolv wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "The chairman of FBH is Jean Chalopin, who, along with being a
| co-creator of cartoon cop Inspector Gadget in the 1980s, is the
| chairman of Deltec Bank, which, like FTX, is based in the
| Bahamas. Deltec's best-known client is Tether, a crypto company
| with $65 billion in assets offering a stablecoin that is pegged
| to the dollar."
|
| That tells you everything you need to know.
| rkachowski wrote:
| That absolutely does not tell me everything I need to know. How
| the hell does the creator of inspector gadget end up mixed in
| this insanity?
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| He's deep into the tether/Bitfinex scam since the start, way
| before Alameda/FTX existed. Now how he ended up there is
| quite a mistery but it's been known since years and years.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Tether is the biggest scam in all of crypto, so this tracks.
| [deleted]
| VHRanger wrote:
| $65B in alleged assets is what they should have said.
| zepearl wrote:
| Ah, come on: a bank with 3 employees + The Inspector Gadget (+
| all other weirdness about FTX), who knows what else will come
| up => I now feel the need to know more, this is just too
| interesting&weird&funny => I'll wait with trepidation Matt
| Levine's post about this stuff, maybe with extras. This is
| almost better than any fiction books/movies.
| meristem wrote:
| I'll leave aside "the transaction was fraudulently approved" for
| the moment. I can see a possible, if naive, thought process being
| "It's a tiny bank, hedge and crypto do absurd types of silly
| transactions, let's let them burn their cash since they think
| yolo with their own money."
| JaggerFoo wrote:
| The PR for the investment doesn't imply nefarious intent.
|
| https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fbh-corp-raises-11-...
|
| Why would they post a PR announcement if they knew it was an
| illegal transaction?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Touching a bank, even briefly glancing it, is a fast way straight
| to federal pen if you're attached to anything nefarious.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| A small bank, right?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Any bank. Bank charters are attached with enormous
| responsibilities and consequences.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| For big banks: fines yes, prison, usually no.
|
| For example https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-
| fed-terminates-e...
| seydor wrote:
| How come this FTX case is so vast and seems to encompass
| everything in the US? From afar, it just seems too much. For
| example, is Coinbase equally multifaceted ?
| pr0zac wrote:
| > The chairman of FBH is Jean Chalopin, who, along with being a
| co-creator of cartoon cop Inspector Gadget in the 1980s, is the
| chairman of Deltec Bank
|
| wat
| helsontaveras18 wrote:
| There was another amazing expose of Tether a few months ago all
| about this. I can't remember if it was on Bloomberg, but that
| Inspector Gadget bit stuck out to me too.
| bombcar wrote:
| Gogo gadget bankfraud!
| PTcartelsLOL wrote:
| So what? I also know one of the producers of Inspector gadget.
| He lives close to me. It was 1985. Too far gone.
| graeme wrote:
| I looked into this. They used to do business as Geniome Bank, and
| their job ads are for "crypto and marijuana". Almost no
| publicity, though they sponsored a few marijuana events.
|
| Chalopin usually shies away from press, so his personal
| involvement is odd. His son is also the chief digital officer of
| the company.
|
| Another curiosity is the old Farmington team is still there,
| including the presdient, and they still appear to be making
| agricultural loans, same as they've done for ~150 years.
|
| The Geniome/Moonstone operations appear to be based out of
| Seattle. Another curiosity not mentioned in this article is that
| Noah Perlman, COO of Gemini, is on the board of directors along
| with Chalopin.
|
| "Geniome" is the trademark of a UK based company also owned by
| Deltec/Chalopin: IFSG. So, Chalopin has an unusal degree of
| personal involvement here.
|
| Deltec previously invested in a small bank for money laundering
| purposes, so that could have been what they were going after
| here, but the amounts seem small. Could have been part of a
| larger plan which collapsed with FTX.
|
| They're scrubbing employee Linkedin's now.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > "Geniome" is the trademark of a UK based company also owned
| by Deltec/Chalopin: IFSG. So, Chalopin has an unusal degree of
| personal involvement here.
|
| And Deltec is a centerpiece behind the tether (USDT)/Bitfinex
| scam.
|
| People who actually described the Alameda/FTX ponzi scam for
| what it was since day one have always said it: Alameda/FTX is
| just a front set up by tether/Bitfinex, made to precisely hide
| more market manipulation.
|
| The links are becoming clearer: the top lawyers at respectively
| both Bitfinex and FTX used to be colleagues who... Worked at a
| firm convicted of fraud for they stole $50 million out of
| players in an online poker scam (the operator could see the
| players' cards and would play against them). FTX was,
| conveniently, a few streets away from Deltec in the Bahamas.
|
| Everything checks out: countless "little" companies to try to
| funnel the money out of the US (including small banks which, as
| is now a fact, shared/exchanged between tether and FTX), the
| Bahamas, the lawyers...
|
| It's a little gang who all know each other very well.
|
| Now I don't think they thought FTX would fall but they had the
| setup made so that should it fall, it'd act as a fuse shielding
| tether/Deltec.
| VagueMag wrote:
| It's a very "wow the simulation is running wild" sensation to
| see that someone who helped create a Keystone Kops-style
| cartoon I loved as a kid is at the center of all this stuff
| where the regulators and investigators are seemingly totally
| out to lunch.
| graeme wrote:
| You may enjoy "inspector Tether". The "Fiat Currency -->
| Crypto Loans" bit was prescient, in light of knowledge that
| Tether's largest "customer", FTX, was a total fraud. Highly
| unlikely FTX gave Tether the $36 billion in USD that Tether
| claimed.
|
| https://twitter.com/caspiancey/status/1348781201146826753
| Animats wrote:
| Oh, joy.
|
| Looking at the Internet Archive's copy of "moonstonebank.com"
| from before the crash:
|
| CEO: Ron Oliveira. There's a new CEO now.
|
| Lots of crypto-related material.
|
| Most useful links end at "Request Early Access" or "Contact
| Us". It doesn't look like they really wanted customers.
|
| > Could have been part of a larger plan which collapsed with
| FTX.
|
| Unclear. The bank may have been used by FTX in some way. But it
| looks like tying it into the FTX empire in a way visible to
| customers didn't happen.
| hericium wrote:
| > It doesn't look like they really wanted customers.
|
| Elon blabbered about making Twitter a bank to avoid
| bankrupcy.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Yeah, a person that ognored rules from both, the SEC and
| FTC, is a perfect candidate to run a _bank_. Sounds
| plausible so, in the sense of that being Elon 's plan.
| bombcar wrote:
| There have been a number of cases in fintech of basically
| "buying" a banking license by buying some small bank.
| graeme wrote:
| That would appear to be the case here, with the difference
| being that the purchaser in this case is a foreign bank known
| for its ties to a large criminal enterprise (Tether/Bitfinex)
| miked85 wrote:
| I can't imagine any average person trusting that bank at all,
| based just on its appearance.
| siftrics wrote:
| Which set of supposed regulators approved this purchase?
|
| Find them. Investigate them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Which set of supposed regulators approved this purchase_
|
| I would bet none. This looks like an illegal transfer of
| control. If shown, that gives us the thread with which to
| finally topple Tether.
| codehalo wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _"The fact that an offshore hedge fund that was basically a
| crypto firm was buying a stake in a tiny bank for multiples of
| its stated book value should have raised massive red flags for
| the F.D.I.C., state regulators and the Federal Reserve," said
| Camden Fine, a bank industry consultant who used to head the
| Independent Community Bankers of America. "It's just
| astonishing that all of this got approved."_
|
| So much for regulators/regulations.
| toddm wrote:
| Looks like a Laudromat.
| 71a54xd wrote:
| Finally, slightly honest less-softball coverage of this outright
| criminal...
| [deleted]
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| From the wapo article, talking about real estate in the Bahamas:
|
| "Literally, the day it occurred, they called and said, 'Let me
| know. I will pay cash,'" Hillier said. "People see opportunity."
|
| Huh. It's almost like how rich people buy property is:
|
| 1. Create a ponzu scheme or other financial shenanigans 2. Get
| money from peoples. 3. Spend proles' money on ridiculous assets
| and property 4. Declare said scheme bankrupt 5. Step in and buy
| assets for pennies on dollar.
|
| Ideally, step 4 happens during a financial crisis so that proles
| can't get access to borrowed money, thereby reducing competition
| for assets.
| [deleted]
| robryan wrote:
| Similar case in Australia where they bought a company that
| already had a financial services license:
| https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/23/ftx-b...
| kyrra wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon...
|
| FTX and it's executives donated $70 million to politicians as
| well (in the last 18 months). SBF donated $40MM to Democrats, and
| a different executive donated $23MM to Republicans.
|
| They were trying to buy all kinds of influence.
| alvah wrote:
| "and a different executive donated $23MM to Republicans"
|
| The different executive donated to his girlfriend, who is a
| Democrat but was running as a Republican. Make of that what you
| will.
| conorcleary wrote:
| Let's hear what Ken Griffin has to say about the GOP receiving
| FTX money.
| GameOfFrowns wrote:
| >Let's hear what Ken Griffin has to say about the GOP
| receiving FTX money.
|
| Did the GOP directly profit from those donations or did it go
| to a specific PAC to support the campaign of a specific
| politician who a had personal connection to FTX Digital
| Markets co-CEO Salame? There is a report that suggests the
| latter[0].
|
| [0]https://www.theblock.co/post/160714/crypto-booster-
| michelle-...
| samtho wrote:
| Not discounting any of the stuff that FTX has done or will come
| to light, but this practice of supporting "both sides" is a
| very common, by-the-book strategy for any special interest
| group or organization looking to buy influence and is flushed
| with money.
| harry8 wrote:
| Well depending on how you define both sides.
|
| They are buying the regulation for themselves and against the
| people and yes this is very common and the people _hate_ it.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I'm still baffled that this kind of corruption isn't frowned
| upon more. People are buying influence. How is that supposed
| to be OK or normal?
| ncallaway wrote:
| I think it's frowned upon by many. It's extremely
| challenging to address since Citizens United made it legal,
| and the courts have chipped away at efforts to make it more
| transparent.
|
| I'm absolutely unhappy with the result. We legalized
| bribery and rank corruption. It's awful for the system.
|
| What do you think it's not frowned upon?
| wpietri wrote:
| I think their point is more that it's not frowned upon by
| people with lots of power and/or money. US policy very
| often aligns with the interests of the rich, and being
| able to buy the policy they want is very much in the
| interests of the rich.
| greesil wrote:
| Unavoidable now because of the Citizens United court
| decision. Of course it's bad, but what are you gonna do?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Yes, Citizens United articulated a system where "money
| for access/attention" is the dominant paradigm of
| American democracy.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Make noise about it.
|
| If you believe this is wrong, that is.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I don't know, it's not this prevalent everywhere so it is
| possible.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes, it is _possible_ to amend the US Constitution to
| carve out an explicit exception in the 1st Amendment for
| political donations. So far Congress hasn 't made a
| serious effort to do so.
| yccs27 wrote:
| I'm not really familiar with the US constitution, but
| doesn't the 1st Amendment only protect speech, petition
| and assembly? Is there some part I'm missing or did a
| court classify campaign donations as speech?
| krustyburger wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
| ncallaway wrote:
| It wasn't this prevalent here either until recently.
|
| The Supreme Court has decided that Congress isn't allowed
| to regulate this kind of behavior. The Court has also
| chipped away at bribery statutes, narrowing them
| significantly.
|
| Unfortunately, without a constitutional amendment, new
| justices on the Supreme Court, or a revolution, there's
| not a lot that can be done. I support an amendment, but
| with the current court it's... we have a long way to go.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Or the "honest and honerable" politicians stop accepting
| donations they know are evil.
|
| Ah never mind, we all know they can't help it.
| watwut wrote:
| Money matter in campaign. Politicians accepting these
| have massive advantage over those who don't- so they end
| up more winning.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| In my opinion, this is the voters fault. Read up on the
| candidates, talk to other voters, if the candidate's ad
| is all fluff and no substance, don't vote for them. STOP
| believing non-journalistic cable TV channels who only
| profit from eyeballs and not the facts.
| ncallaway wrote:
| There are honest and honorable politicians that don't
| take such money.
|
| They often lose to the politicians that do take the
| donations. Because they don't have the money necessary to
| compete in the election.
|
| So, there's a survivorship bias. _Elected_ politicians
| are much more likely to be taking those donations. That's
| why the system is so problematic. It drives out honest
| and honorable politicians, and rewards corrupt ones,
| which further reinforces the idea that all politicians
| are corrupt. They're not, but under this system most
| elected politicians are.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Band together with other citizens and demand an end of
| this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons.
| The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power
| to the people, the laws were never intended to grant
| personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling
| unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| What kind of organization should citizens be allowed to
| create to promote a political position, if not a
| corporation?
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| One with limited spending power appears to be the gist,
| to everyone but the Supreme Court
| ben_w wrote:
| A political party, surely.
|
| (Also, despite that I am not much of a fan of the UK
| political system, I do like that it has _extremely_ low
| limits on election spending).
| greesil wrote:
| If by citizens you mean citizens with a fuckload of
| money.
| greesil wrote:
| Banding how exactly in a way that would have sufficient
| impact to change this? It's not trivial to start a
| massive political movement. I gotta pay my mortgage, etc.
| tiahura wrote:
| Maybe I'm dense, but what difference does it make whether
| it was SBF or FTX making the donations? Why implicate
| Citizens United?
| jzmorganchase wrote:
| Pretty wild but I worked with the other executive here Ryan
| Salame at a different company before he worked at Alameda/FTX a
| few year ago. He was a fairly junior so it's sort of surreal to
| see that he became co-CEO and had enough liquid wealth to be
| donating $20m+ for political campaigns.
| vkou wrote:
| Given how FTX was buying it's executives houses, I doubt that
| was his liquid wealth, I think he was just dipping into the
| FTX customer deposit piggy bank.
| jzmorganchase wrote:
| Yep that's the most likely scenario outside of secondary
| stock sales or personal sales of large amounts of FTT.
|
| What's weird about him though is he wasn't listed as one of
| the "close insiders" who allegedly knew about the transfers
| of customers funds from FTX -> Alameda despite being "co-
| CEO" and there from the beginning of FTX's creation.
| from wrote:
| Interesting how almost no one commented on the actual article
| here. I think this ownership probably has to more do with the
| fact that mainstream banks don't want to get near crypto
| exchanges than some kind of corrupt conspiracy. The current
| regulatory system relies on outsourcing AML/KYC to banks but I
| guess no one ever thought about what happens if someone is rich
| enough to just buy a bank. Plenty of 5 employee credit unions
| around just waiting to be acquired!
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Well life imitates art: Axecap buys a bank in Billions!
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Buy something if you have the money. It's called free market.
| So it's not by accident like this, it's not a bug, it's a
| feature.
| sschueller wrote:
| My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where
| SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet).
| When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a
| radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone
| (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Honestly I actually doubt he did anything he can be charged
| with. The whole point of crypto is that you are investing in
| something ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to take responsibility for.
|
| I find it amusing that there is now a call to apply the same
| rules for crypto exchanges. Didn't everyone hate traditional
| finance a few months ago?
| VagueMag wrote:
| He signed up customers with documented agreements saying
| that their funds would be segregated and not lent out, and
| then he used the U.S. banking system's wire infrastructure
| to have their money sent _directly_ to his hedge fund
| Alameda Research instead of the exchange FTX.
| lazide wrote:
| Cite? If so, that's amazingly dumb.
| VagueMag wrote:
| This was one of many admissions in his text exchange with
| Vox. You can see an example wire here https://twitter.com
| /EventLongShort/status/159346927091841434...
| treis wrote:
| That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Customers sent
| him dollars to buy crypto. So any dollars that came in
| were almost immediately turned into crypto. The only way
| for those crypto assets to be missing is if the crypto
| was transferred.
| VagueMag wrote:
| The dollars were used to purchase a _claim_ on crypto
| payable by the exchange FTX. But it is not at all clear
| at this point that if someone sent money to them ( "them"
| being some kind of quantum superposition of FTX and
| Alameda Research) and used it to purchase Bitcoin on the
| exchange, that FTX ever did anything other than update a
| number in their internal customer-facing ledgers. They
| had only $639,000 in Bitcoin on their balance sheet in
| their bankruptcy filing. And obviously the crypto is not
| all sitting at FTX ready to meet customer withdrawals or
| they would never have paused them in the first place.
| lazide wrote:
| He admitted to using client funds against the stated TOS.
| Embezzlement, Fraud, whatever - a crime did occur,
| regardless of if it was crypto, and every country I've run
| across has laws against that.
|
| Untangling how to charge him, and where, and digging up
| concrete enough evidence to file an indictment is going to
| take awhile of course. The post-bankruptcy CEO seems to be
| finding plenty.
|
| As with a lot of non-violent crime, it takes awhile to
| arrest someone because there is a lot of paperwork. When
| the suspect has a lot of cash and lawyers, it takes longer
| because they need to make sure there isn't an angle they
| are missing that could get them off.
| Animats wrote:
| > As with a lot of non-violent crime, it takes awhile to
| arrest someone because there is a lot of paperwork. When
| the suspect has a lot of cash and lawyers, it takes
| longer because they need to make sure there isn't an
| angle they are missing that could get them off.
|
| Yes. The investigation has to happen before the arrest.
| With violent crime, it's usually clear what happened; the
| question is who did it. With white-collar crime, sorting
| out what happened is complicated. With FTX, it's really
| complicated. Prosecutors only get one chance; if they
| take someone to trial on early evidence and lose, they
| usually can't come back later and try again.
|
| But it doesn't all have to be figured out. Just enough
| for a long sentence. Known overt acts, such as buying
| US$300 million of Bahamas real estate with company funds
| and putting the real estate in a family name, are
| probably enough for grand theft.
| treis wrote:
| What he's admitted to are loose financial controls and by
| the letter of the law it's not illegal to be bad at your
| job. Obviously no one really believes his "whoopsie
| poopsie accidentally lost a few billion" story but
| technically he hasn't yet admitted to a crime.
| lazide wrote:
| Nope. Mishandling customer funds _yourself_ against _your
| own stated use of said funds to customers when you
| gathered those funds_ is one of those crimes above,
| depending on specifics.
|
| Bad financial controls is if someone else _whoopsie_
| accidentally steals or mishandles the funds. Which at
| least per a cite provided earlier, he admitted to doing
| it himself.
|
| To be able to claim a lack of culpability for this
| requires a degree of plausible ignorance about what the
| left and right hands were doing. He seems to be working
| hard to chip away at any sort of plausibility there.
| treis wrote:
| He doesn't have to claim anything because he's presumed
| innocent. To nail him for wire fraud you need to prove:
|
| >(1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally
| devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another
| out of money;
|
| >(2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud
|
| https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-
| manual...
|
| Thus far he hasn't admitted to either and so hasn't yet
| admitted to a crime.
| lazide wrote:
| You're making claims I never did.
|
| Wire fraud != fraud, theft, or embezzlement.
|
| It's a specific sub-type of fraud, and your link is
| pointing to a specific list of elements within a certain
| jurisdiction.
|
| Even then, that vox conversation cited above combined
| with what we already know is likely to be enough to prove
| at least embezzlement.
|
| Here is a link to some elements of the crime for that if
| you're interested.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement
|
| Based on what we've seen so far, _unless he somehow can
| convince a Judge or Jury that he didn't know what was
| happening_ , it would be very implausible someone
| couldn't get a sizable conviction somewhere on one or
| more of those charges. But we won't know for sure until
| the situation has been analyzed. But he sure isn't
| helping himself.
|
| Which is why I said what I said. He could of course have
| no defense and sit there mute for the entire trial, but I
| can't imagine a Jury would be all that convinced by it,
| if the prosecution provided even the most basic set of
| evidence that seems to be lying around all over the
| place.
| beiller wrote:
| What would happen if everyone's starbucks phone wallet
| balance suddenly vanished because starbucks YOLO'd all the
| funds on Dogecoin? Would that be fraud? Or would they just
| get away with Oops moneys is gone, all your balances are
| now zero.
| piva00 wrote:
| Statistically speaking there's assuredly at least 1 person in
| this whole fiasco that lost most to all of their life
| savings, stolen from them, by this guy.
|
| This is an extreme form of violence, not physical but
| definitely psychological, your whole life of work savings was
| wiped out and taken by this guy.
|
| Holding the view you hold is why white-collar crimes are
| viewed so leniently compared to what you'd call violent
| crimes. Just because the effects of it are more abstracted
| away doesn't make them lesser, people might commit suicide
| over this. They might never recover the amount of money lost
| for the rest of their lifetime. It's a perpetual torture for
| those who got the shortest end of the stick. How is that non-
| violent?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's not my view that he hasn't been charged or convicted,
| it is an objective fact.
|
| What is the definition of violence?
|
| > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt,
| damage, or kill someone or something.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _What is the definition of violence?_
|
| You've already conceded that words can hurt people (Alex
| Jones), so why are you trying to backpedal that now?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _words can hurt people (Alex Jones)_
|
| Equating money losses with violence dilutes the term, and
| has a history of slipping into hurt feelings and
| blasphemy being tantamount to violence. There are crimes
| which may rise to the severity of violence. That doesn't
| make them violence. Alex Jones incited violent. He,
| himself, was never violent. SBF perpetuated a massive
| fraud. He has not been connected with any violence.
| notahacker wrote:
| Yeah. I see SBF coming up with some sort of self-
| exculpatory bullshit to a fairly hostile line of
| questioning; something unlikely to hurt anyone other than
| maybe SBF
|
| I don't see him excusing himself by explaining that
| regulators aren't real, they're just actors playing a
| role in an evil New World Order conspiracy to take
| people's guns away, and if he does, I don't see the NYT
| Dealbook summit attendees being the sort of people that
| turn up on their doorsteps as a result. And FTX is far
| too dead for him to harm people's wallets any further by
| persuading them to park their money in it.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| I don't believe Alex Jones ever incited violence. SBF
| destroyed the net worth of a lot of people.
| brookst wrote:
| Are you suggesting that if _any_ words can harm people,
| _all_ words must be considered harmful?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I'm saying Bankman-Fried has hurt a few orders of
| magnitude more people than Alex Jones, and allowing him
| to give interviews and flippantly defend himself is going
| to cause a lot of emotional trauma.
| justincredible wrote:
| [deleted]
| automatic6131 wrote:
| >When he is, his actions weren't violent
|
| If you steal $10 from a local shop (sorry, $1000 in
| California now) you'll be in jail before the end of the week.
| Steal $1,000,000,000 eight times over and you.. get to speak
| at a NYT conference?
|
| I don't know, I just want some consistency from the justice
| system. That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| > That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really.
|
| Please tell me what reality you live in and how to get
| there. Hell, just look across this site to see all the
| advice that ethics are for those who like staying poor.
| maxbond wrote:
| It's quite simple, you take a clear eyed look at the
| problems in the world and you say, "I don't need to
| accept this, this can and should be fixed." You'll no
| doubt encounter people saying silly stuff like you cited,
| because some people operate on the basis of "the most
| cynical take is the correct one;" you ignore these people
| and continue to focus on the problems at hand. Similar to
| how, if you want to start a business, there are likely
| people in your life who will shoot down every idea that
| you have; you stop asking those people for advice.
| lazide wrote:
| One challenge with that approach is if you're not
| careful, someone might start identifying you as a threat
| because of that behavior, and start attacking you using
| the BS and lies that a great many others are susceptible
| too (or outright violence).
|
| What we're seeing now is the part of the larger cycle
| where folks get more and more insistent that they're
| warped world view is correct (and it wouldn't surprise me
| if we get more violence than we got on Jan 6th later
| because of it), since they can't acknowledge that they're
| wrong and something bad is happening because of it, which
| will cause more bad things to happen.
|
| It is imperative more people stand up and provide
| counter-pressure, because otherwise they will win.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| I believe that stealing from financial systems should be
| less harshly punished than stealing directly from people,
| small businesses etc.
|
| Whole point of financial system is risk management, while
| corner shop owners should not deal with theft risk at all.
| from wrote:
| I mean yes it's true that JP Morgan isn't going to go
| bankrupt if they cash some bad checks but at the end of
| the day that's money that could go to opening new
| branches, hiring employees, paying bonuses or depositors
| more interest. The cost to society is the same it's just
| distributed over a larger number of people.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I bet more than one corner shop worker had money in FTX.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Sure. If you put your money slightly outside regulated
| banks, you implicitly accept the risk of losing it.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| He stole billions of dollars in client funds.
|
| That's far more damaging than a delusional rant on some
| obscure internet radio station.
| mvdwoord wrote:
| Not violent directly perhaps. I agree that letting him speak
| now won't hurt anyone, physically for sure.. but theft and
| destruction of wealth is not without consequences, in real
| life.
|
| If, through my actions, you become financially ruined, I may
| not have kicked, beaten, or raped you, but is the harm
| comparable? Is it violence?
| mahart wrote:
| It is an alleged massive fraud going on a public relations
| tour pre-trial, which not every defendant gets. I guess we'll
| see if NYT allows him to sail through it sympathetically.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| He has admitted to the crimes. There's no doubt that he
| committed a massive fraud. They gambled with customer funds
| and lost billions of dollars.
|
| Alex Jones isn't dangerous. He's just a weird guy who likes
| to rant about stuff. Sam Bankman Fried is a thief.
| latchkey wrote:
| I personally view financial theft as a form of violence.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Good for you? The law and society at large doesn't.
|
| Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to
| hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
| maxbond wrote:
| I think most understand violence to include things like
| intimidation, emotional abuse, and imprisonment. The
| expression "physical violence" is a reflection of this
| broader understanding - there wouldn't need to be
| clarification, otherwise.
|
| I think of violence as the use of force or implied force
| to limit the agency of another. I'm not sure I'd call
| this violence but I can see where they're coming from.
|
| Maybe ask for clarification instead of being rude and
| dismissive, or simply leave your sneering judgement
| unsaid. You may be find this view uninteresting, but I
| find your snark exhausting. I could just as easily say,
| "oh you're snarky, good for you?" Additionally GP added
| to the conversation, and your snark detracts.
| mlindner wrote:
| > When he is, his actions weren't violent.
|
| He stole tremendous amounts of people's money. I hope you're
| as forgiving to him as you are towards to the people who
| caused the 2008 economic collapse. At least they weren't
| actively stealing people's money.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Surely they'll pull him. The NYT may act like its above the
| people, the politics, but even this would be an overreach.
| However, if SBF is committed to showing up, then it could be
| the paper's moment to shine. However I don't think the Times
| quite has the nation's confidence that it once enjoyed ..long
| ago.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > then it could be the paper's moment to shine
|
| The NYT having SBF speak at one of their conferences would be
| the paper's moment to shine?
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Yes. If a tough reporter really nails him down with a tough
| interview, it could be a shining moment for journalism. If
| they fawn over him, as some have suggested of recent
| coverage, then it will be a failure. The NYT should keep
| him, dare him to show up, and then do their jobs: Hold his
| feet to the fire.
| MrRiddle wrote:
| eli wrote:
| The summits are about making money not news.
| m348e912 wrote:
| Even if it is a money-making endeavor, the NYT could
| slightly mend its journalistic reputation with some hard-
| hitting questions to SBF. They have been soft-handed so
| far in their reporting on SBF and FTX and it reeks of
| major bias and conflict of interest.
|
| In case anyone doesn't know what I am referring to, here
| is some background.
|
| https://www.publish0x.com/making-cents/whats-wrong-with-
| the-...
| chrchang523 wrote:
| Note that they aren't pulling him:
| https://twitter.com/andrewrsorkin/status/1595517635441090565
| siculars wrote:
| As a lure, so they can arrest him in the US? Clicks? Otherwise
| not sure why.
| VagueMag wrote:
| They've said they expect him to attend virtually from the
| Bahamas.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| I don't think he's that stupid.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| Then again, I've been telling myself the exact same thing
| since the start of this saga and I have been proven wrong
| every single time.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Yes, but no - putting aside the whole organizational,
| accounting etc failure, he just doubled the stakes each
| time he could.
| loeg wrote:
| I believe the US has an extradition treaty with the Bahamas.
| fredgrott wrote:
| tongue-in-cheek how else does DOJ get him to a location to
| arrest him in the easiest way possible?
| [deleted]
| fisherjeff wrote:
| I obviously can't speak for everyone, but personally, I am
| _much_ more interested in what he has to say now than I was
| pre-collapse.
| returnInfinity wrote:
| Yes, same. Sorkin says he won't hold back.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| This is a huge red flag. Bankman-Fried is acting like the
| fix is already in.
|
| I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until
| they slam the iron bars closed behind him.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I doubt any organized crime was using FTX. And if they
| were, he seems mart enough to pay them back first. But if
| there was some smallish organization of contraband
| dealers using FTX and he didn't know? White collar prison
| isn't his worst case outcome.
|
| As said earlier he has bribed the right big fish. But
| ignoring angry medium fish can be a problem. Also those
| might not be bribes. It might be a way to launder money
| into campaign contributions. Not that you really need
| that in the US now.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| If you're trusting what SBF is implying about a fix being
| in, well I have some FTT to sell you.
|
| The guy is going to jail. If you want to make a bet on
| it, I'm willing to do so.
| kerng wrote:
| Yeah, interviewing is fine but should be police/feds, not a
| publicity event where he can further his own agenda.
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| All he seems to be able to say is that yes, he did YOLO with
| customer funds, and he is really sorry and wishes he didn't
| do that.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Has he moved on to wishing he didn't do that? I've only
| heard him say he wished the YOLO worked.
| wslh wrote:
| He can say that they were testing a new AI system that failed
| while they were sleeping...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the
| average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right
| through it.
|
| Different story for the average listener, who will be
| listening to most interactions with an open mind and
| susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or
| persuasive.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I would withhold judgement. For all we know the interviewer
| (who is going to be much more prepared and informed than
| people here) is going to press him in front of thousands of
| people why he stole people's money and lied about it. Let's
| see.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Given it's Andrew Ross Sorkin, he probably won't.
| bioemerl wrote:
| I'm not a fan of protecting people from themselves. Let
| them speak.
| guywithahat wrote:
| While I have little confidence in the average NYT reader I
| think people need to be able to make up their own minds,
| and Sam has an important and relevant perspective which we
| should be able to take into account, even if he might frame
| it in a way that makes him look good
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| He's a criminal fraudster.
| raegis wrote:
| Can you point to any one thing he said which no one else
| has said before? Maybe an insightful comment to help
| understand his "relevant perspective"?
|
| He got a degree from MIT, did a year at Jane Street, but
| is unable to keep basic financial records??? This doesn't
| make sense to me, and seems like obvious fraud.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| I don't think he has any special wisdom to impart, but I
| really like the potential payoff opportunity. Something
| really funny could happen! Like a pie in his face or a
| profoundly self-unaware quip that sends the crowd into
| half shrieking laughter and half boos.
| largepeepee wrote:
| It's not like he hasn't been talking or typing.
|
| His lawyers probably reckoned he was talking way too
| much, was too much of a liability and dropped him
| immediately.
|
| The real question is he keeps receiving positive media
| coverage? They keep trying to frame him as, just a "dumb
| kid and his friends" that "accidentally misplaced
| billions" - when in fact, it is pretty obvious he planned
| most of it, by how his complex corporate structure was
| and the constant deleting of evidence every step of the
| way.
|
| Not to mention how he gave himself over a billion of
| personal loans and spending millions on bribes towards
| the end for hopes of political protection when he knew he
| was running out of rope to hide his scam.
| brookst wrote:
| Not sure where you're seeing this coordinated effort to
| frame him positively. Im sure there are some takes like
| that, but there is also:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sit-
| in-th...
|
| https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-
| incom...
|
| I'm seeing plenty of critical coverage. Are you really
| not seeing that?
| cstejerean wrote:
| Headlines like "Sam Bankman-Fried's Plans to Save the
| World Went Down in Flames" paint him in a more positive
| light than he deserves IMO. There were no plans to save
| the world.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| Is that true? I have to think that the average attendee of
| the New York Times's DealBook summit is probably going to
| be fairly high-information. I don't think the "average
| person" will even know about this conference much less care
| enough to watch the speeches.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > Different story for the average listener, who will be
| listening to most interactions with an open mind and
| susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming
| or persuasive.
|
| That doesn't matter. Who cares how the public sees him? All
| that's going to matter is how a jury sees him shortly. And
| the prosecution will be able to present evidence.
|
| In the meantime, let him keep speaking on the record and
| admitting to things. And providing a show for those of use
| who are paying attention.
|
| Besides, I'm not sure how many "average listeners" are
| going to be tuning into the NYT event. I assume it's mostly
| people who have been following the story.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| This is true of basically every public figure.
|
| I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak,
| to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.
| watwut wrote:
| They are not letting me speak. They are not letting
| average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given
| that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever.
|
| They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting
| huge amounts of other people.
|
| But the other real thing is how you introduce the
| speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your
| materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.
| gumby wrote:
| It's an interview not a talk (see my other comment)
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| A congressional commitee hearing would accomplish it.
| partiallypro wrote:
| I'm not interested at all, going by his Twitter, it will all
| be complete nonsense. Hopefully he's intercepted by the FBI
| and finally brought to justice.
| andy9999 wrote:
| Why would other people agree to share a stage with a guy who
| has possibly/probably(?) committed a massive fraud?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why would other people agree to share a stage with a guy
| who has possibly/probably(?) committed a massive fraud?
|
| Netanyahu or SBF?
| dmix wrote:
| There's plenty of journalistic value in interviewing him and
| the audience will be very interested in hearing it.
|
| I'm not sure what being outraged over his interview is going
| to achieve Signalling you disagree with what he did? To
| protect people from his hearing his dangerous words? To
| punish him?
|
| IMO hearing his rationale, seeing how he convinced people,
| the lies he tells himself, etc should all be analyzed and
| publicly scrutinized. It's not like he's promoting some new
| venture or something.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Forget about the journalists, other speakers and
| interviewees are attending...why would THEY want to be
| associated with this?
| dmix wrote:
| Associated with what? An interview being done with a
| public figure?
|
| They aren't suddenly friends with the guy because he gave
| a virtual interview over Zoom at the same event as them.
|
| You don't need to be constantly publicly showing your
| outrage to make it clear "x person bad". We get it. We
| know he's bad. Even without such brave moral heroics.
| bink wrote:
| Will he be paid for the appearance? Journalism usually
| precludes paying for an interview.
| ls15 wrote:
| Did you look at the list of speakers? I think that most of
| them are used to being around fraudsters.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| For personal entertainment? I dunno?
|
| I mean something is gonna go down, might as well be there for
| the popcorn.
| nathias wrote:
| otherwise the stages would be empty
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The claim is that they'll use the opportunity to grill him with
| hard questions and check his lies on the spot.
|
| In reality, I have a hard time believing that after watching
| Kanye West's recent media tour where he steamrolled his
| interviewers and used their platforms to repeat his claims over
| and over again. Even the podcasts where interviewers supposedly
| pushed back the most (Lex Fridman is often given as an example)
| barely resulted in Kanye acknowledging the pushback and didn't
| stop him from repeating his points over and over on the
| platform.
|
| The NYTimes event is especially weird because it's not being
| held up as a "watch us grill this liar" but rather "come hear
| talks from this impressive lineup of accomplished people!"
| candiddevmike wrote:
| SBF is probably paying for the best personal brand repair
| money can buy. He knows if you can achieve the cult like
| following of Elon or Trump you can become untouchable with
| the right bribes.
| dmix wrote:
| SBF's name is the reputational equivalent of Bernie Madoff.
|
| You think people are going to help him make a comeback or
| convince people to give him more money?
|
| His only counsel now is going to be criminal lawyers. No PR
| firm or conference interview could save this dude's
| reputation.
| marvin wrote:
| His PR team bought the New York Times. It's ludicrous to
| think that they're giving him this positive treatment
| without bribes. Well, not bribe-bribes, of course, but
| rather the kind of bribes that _very_ rich and well-
| connected people can afford.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I have a hard time believing that Kanye West, a public
| entertainer with decades of media experience, is a reasonable
| bellwether for how SBF is likely to perform under similar
| circumstances.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Perhaps so that he will come to the US so he can be arrested
| here?
| gumby wrote:
| He's being interviewed by Sorkin so even if FTX hadn't crashed,
| it would have been as interesting* and enlightening as SBF's
| interview with Levine. It will be even better now, and I will
| enjoy reading the transcript.
|
| * TBH my only interest in the whole things is Schadenfreude,
| like checking out a car crash in the street. The sector is so
| tiny that even if FTX brings the whole thing down it'll be a
| largely invisible ripple on a macro scale.
| alexpetralia wrote:
| I am surprised the NYT didn't de-platform him.
|
| Actually, I am not surprised the NYT did not de-platform him.
| brookst wrote:
| Who has the NYT deplatformed? What platform do they even
| comtrol?
| dmix wrote:
| Getting people kicked off speaking events is a common
| 'deplatforming' tactic.
| brookst wrote:
| Great. Who has the NYT deplatformed?
| dmix wrote:
| What's your point?
|
| That NYTimes takes a stand against deplatforming? At
| their own summits? Or in their newspaper's opinion
| pieces?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-24 23:01 UTC)