[HN Gopher] FTX tapped into customer accounts to fund risky bets... ___________________________________________________________________ FTX tapped into customer accounts to fund risky bets, setting up its downfall Author : mfiguiere Score : 321 points Date : 2022-11-10 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com) | solotronics wrote: | Probably a good time to mention the original mission statement of | Bitcoin was to custody your own money without counterparty risk. | Time and time again we have seen altcoin ponzis and exchanges | collapse under the weight of their fractional reserve. What is | still working? Bitcoin. | | Greed in this space causes people to act with a more short term | view for quick profits while ignoring fundamentals. Over and over | again. | n0tth3dro1ds wrote: | Not your keys, not your coins. | varsketiz wrote: | Is Bitcoin history a metaphor for "society needs to learn more | about technology"? | laluser wrote: | The Twitter thread from SBF is even better where he admits he | messed up. And still trying to throw jabs at Binance here and | there like it's their fault they're here. Unbelievable. | sillysaurusx wrote: | In case anyone wants a link to the thread, here it is: | https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1590709166515310593?s=20&... | | It was actually in an adjacent paywalled article | (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news- | today-11-...). If anyone knows a way to bypass that paywall, | I'd be curious to read the rest. | Projectiboga wrote: | Pop it into archive.is or dot tv | [deleted] | saberdancer wrote: | Usually you can get a copy of the article by going to | archive.ph and pasting the paywalled link. | | It may not be most ethical thing to do but if you want to | read an article or two behind a paywall, I don't think it is | insane to do. | | This article though seems to be some kind of a live feed | where there is not really a lot archived - maybe it works | better for paying users viewing things live. | zeven7 wrote: | That article is miniscule and mostly just links to the | tweets. After the 3 sentence preview which is visible to | anyone it has 1 more sentence (a quote from SBF) then "Other | highlights from his series of tweets" followed by 5 short 1 | sentence bullet points summarizing things from the tweets. | Then an embed of the first tweet wraps it up. | [deleted] | [deleted] | warinukraine wrote: | To me the funniest part is him saying "I should've done | better", as if he was attempting something worthwhile, but | failed. No, he stole his customers and "done better" would've | been doing the opposite. | oldgradstudent wrote: | Even Saul Goodman would have told him to shut up. | the_doctah wrote: | Suggesting Saul was actually a bad lawyer? He always told his | clients to shut up. | skippyboxedhero wrote: | He also attempted to claim that the problem was due to an issue | with the "labelling" of funds...this story leaks, we know he | has been telling people he lent the money to Alameda, and in | these tweets he is now saying that he has a problem expressing | what happened... | | ...I feel bad for him because he obviously believes his own | bullshit, but he should have just said nothing rather than lie | about what happened and pull the Mr. Magoo act. | nemo44x wrote: | I think he's in the anger and bargaining phases of it all. I | expect he will either kill himself or go to prison when his | fraud laid out. "I messed up" isn't going to get him out of | this. This story has just begun. | crakhamster01 wrote: | I have no sympathy for Sequoia et al and the various celebrities | that lost their money betting on FTX. I feel terrible for the | average retail investor that got duped by the string of | endorsements that made FTX seem "legitimate". | | I'm hoping the little guy is able to get their money out before | investors do, but history makes this seem unlikely. | shp0ngle wrote: | I highly recommend reading this article, from _50 days ago_. | | So many humorous quotes to be had in that article. | | https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlig... | | edit: archive https://archive.ph/GQkCp | maxFlow wrote: | This was one of the worst written, saddest pieces I have ever | read. It's full of idiotic commentary, unjustified praise and | just plain ignorance. Out of the dozen+ remarkably stupid | quotes I found I'll share this excerpt: | | > That's when SBF told Sequoia about the so-called super-app: | "I want FTX to be a place where you can do anything you want | with your next dollar. You can buy bitcoin. You can send money | in whatever currency to any friend anywhere in the world. You | can buy a banana. You can do anything you want with your money | from inside FTX." | | > Suddenly, the chat window on Sequoia's side of the Zoom | lights up with partners freaking out. | | > "I LOVE THIS FOUNDER," typed one partner. | | > "I am a 10 out of 10," pinged another. | | > "YES!!!" exclaimed a third. | | > What Sequoia was reacting to was the scale of SBF's vision. | It wasn't a story about how we might use fintech in the future, | or crypto, or a new kind of bank. It was a vision about the | future of money itself--with a total addressable market of | every person on the entire planet. | | > "I sit ten feet from him, and I walked over, thinking, Oh, | shit, that was really good," remembers Arora. "And it turns out | that that fucker was playing League of Legends through the | entire meeting." | | Lo and behold. The intricate, behind-the-scenes scheming of the | highly educated financial elite, revelead at last. All | predicated upon the grand vision of... buying a banana with | your "super-app". No wonder we're going through a much needed | correction, some people need to be weeded out of decision | making roles ASAP. | [deleted] | shp0ngle wrote: | > o I find myself convinced that, if SBF can keep his wits | about him in the years ahead, he's going to slay--that, just as | Alameda was a stepping stone to FTX, FTX will be to the super- | app. Banking will be disrupted and transformed by crypto, just | as media was transformed and disrupted by the web. Something of | the sort must happen eventually, as the current system, with | its layers upon layers of intermediaries, is antiquated and | prone to crashing--the global financial crisis of 2008 was just | the latest in a long line of failures that occurred because | banks didn't actually know what was on their balance sheets. | Crypto is money that can audit itself | | > there. The FTX competitive advantage? Ethical behavior. SBF | is a Peter Singer-inspired utilitarian in a sea of Robert | Nozick-inspired libertarians. He's an ethical maximalist in an | industry that's overwhelmingly populated with ethical | minimalists. I'm a Nozick man myself, but I know who I'd rather | trust my money with: SBF, hands-down. And if he does end up | saving the world as a side effect of being my banker, all the | better. | reso wrote: | Please tell me someone has this on internet archive. | shp0ngle wrote: | https://archive.ph/GQkCp | | archive of google cache (best thing I can do!) | chmod775 wrote: | https://web.archive.org/web/20221109025610/https://www.sequo. | .. | [deleted] | songeater wrote: | "Among Wall Street's financial elite, SBF's Bitcoin arb is | mentioned in the same hushed tones as Paul Tudor Jones's 1987 | shorting of the entire American economy, or George Soros's 1992 | raid on the Bank of England, or John Paulson's 2008 bet against | subprime mortgages. Alameda's capture of the kimchi premium | (and other trades like it) gave SBF the grubstake he needed for | his next move: founding the crypto exchange FTX--a company that | may very well end up creating the dominant all-in-one financial | super-app of the future." | nullc wrote: | The hushed tones of 'that is obviously bullshit'. | josaka wrote: | Customers with assets in custodial accounts of an exchange that | goes bankrupt are likely general unsecured creditors, and the | assets are probably property of the bankruptcy estate. | https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2022/02/what-happens... | | This means that, in the line of people to get paid out of those | assets, you're not even at the front. Custodial accounts leave | you with little protection. | trident5000 wrote: | This seems to be a slam dunk for prison time. | | Only thing I can think of is if these companies are international | so he doesnt get prosecuted in the US under US laws. Thats his | only hope. | elefanten wrote: | Well, his ultimate hedge is that both his parents are Stanford | law professors. Slam dunk unlikely. | AustinDev wrote: | He was also the 6th largest political donor for the 2022 | election cycle. | _fizz_buzz_ wrote: | Bernie Madoff was also a big political donor, didn't help | him in the end. SBF will also probably not hand out | donations in the near future, so there is very little | incentive to help him out at this point. | adrr wrote: | Good investment. Steal from customers and use their money | to prevent prosecution. | skullone wrote: | I checked my FTX account, only had play money in there. But, | despite all the people saying "FTX is fine, withdrawls still | work, it's all fine" - nope, everything is disabled, withdrawls | show $0.10 avaialble to withdrawl (out of a few hundred I had in | actual US cash, plus the BTC and doge transactions are all | disabled. This is very serious for many people - there are some | who had substantial amounts of money, including my friend who is | at the moment suicidal, a lot of his identity and worth was tied | up in crypto. Please offer support to those you know who are | affected by this scam, and do not encourage or enable anyone else | to dablle more than throwaway money into anything crypto | pmcollins wrote: | FTX.us or intl? | skullone wrote: | ftx.us - checked again, at least my account is still unable | to withdraw. | woah wrote: | This has nothing to do with crypto, it has to do with people | sending their money to a con man. If your friend had "his | identity tied up in crypto", then why wasn't he holding it | himself? | chatterhead wrote: | Countdown to Fried fleeing to Israel begins... | tinktank wrote: | Scam after scam after scam. Welcome to crypto, folks. | dang wrote: | Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to | Hacker News. We're trying for a different sort of forum. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | jo6gwb wrote: | For all those who want to draw parallels to the banking industry, | Reg O delineates rules for lending to insiders. | | https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/legalinterpret... | esotericimpl wrote: | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Reg O delineates rules for lending to insiders_ | | Also, in case this isn't painfully obvious, broker's can't make | prop bets using client assets. And exchanges can't make prop | bets using their flows. | jwmoz wrote: | Apparently he was playing league of legends whilst the market was | falling apart | chlodwig wrote: | From the article: "FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried said in | investor meetings this week that Alameda owes FTX about $10 | billion, people familiar with the matter said. FTX extended loans | to Alameda using money that customers had deposited on the | exchange for trading purposes, a decision that Mr. Bankman-Fried | described as a poor judgment call, one of the people said." | | In the FTX International terms of service ( | https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FT... ) | they say that users have full title, ownership and control of | digital assets. They say that the assets are the property of the | user, and shall not be loaned to FTX trading, shall not be | treated as they belong to FTX trading, and that users control the | assets in the account. | | So if they did indeed loan out customer deposits, that is just | straight up criminal fraud, open and shut. This isn't like some | DeFi scheme where they are working around some legal loophole or | in the fine print tell you that they will probably lose your | money. This is just straight up illegal under the plain vanilla | theft and fraud laws of any country. This isn't even a bank run | (banks at least tell you they are loaning your deposits out) -- | it's a run on a U-Haul self-storage where you find out that they | actually sold all the furniture in your storage unit to a pawn | shop. | dools wrote: | > banks at least tell you they are loaning your deposits out | | Side not but that's not really how banking works. Banks create | deposits when they originate loans and separately look for the | assets they need in order to satisfy any regulatory | requirements and net flows of funds for inter bank settlements. | | https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... | wefarrell wrote: | I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this space. Do they not | have any kind of compliance structure? In hindsight it seems | pretty obvious that this sort of thing would happen without it. | convolvatron wrote: | compliance to what? all those regulations are just hindering | the operation of the free market, and we started this whole | crypto thing to avoid them on purpose? | exolymph wrote: | Well, they at least _had_ compliance staff. "Most of FTX's | legal and compliance staff quit Tuesday evening, people | familiar with the matter told Semafor, leaving few executives | who could answer questions that now loom large over the | firm." https://www.semafor.com/article/11/09/2022/ftx-legal- | and-com... | | Pretty much every large exchange has a compliance team, btw, | at least the ones with US operations. | fnordpiglet wrote: | They're not securities and they're regulated. Theres nothing | to comply to. Perhaps crypto exchanges should be regulated? | hacker_lady wrote: | fnordpiglet wrote: | This is why in regulated securities markets customer assets | must be held in segregated accounts. Corzine, who knew better, | ended up with an orange suit for not doing this. | qeternity wrote: | Did Corzine actually go to jail? This didn't sound right to | me and a quick search suggests no. | [deleted] | wslh wrote: | How many years could Sam Bankman-Fried get in jail? | | It is also interesting to read on his Wikipedia profile [1] | about "Bankman-Fried is a supporter of effective altruism and | claims to pursue earning to give as an altruistic career. He is | a member of Giving What We Can and has claimed that he plans to | donate the great majority of his wealth to effective charities | over the course of his life.". Having direct access to a lot of | money changes a some people ethics. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried | Digory wrote: | So if the chain is supposed to enable "trustless" finance, what | enabled Alameda to take anything? Seems Alameda and its clients | should be screwed, but FTX's holders should be relatively easy | to identify and restore. | | But everyone seems to say that's not the case. So what broke | down here? Why isn't the ledger ledgering? | delusional wrote: | The ledger ensures that the handing over of the "thing" can | happen without trust in any intermediary. You still | ultimately have to trust the counterparty to deliver what | they promise. | | Think of it like HTTPS. Nobody can sneak anything into the | request, but the counterparty you're contacting could still | be a fraud. | ChadNauseam wrote: | There are fully-decentalized exchanges which have to have | much less counterparty risk (because anyone could take the | other side of your deal, so you don't want to trust them). | As a simple example, imagine a contract which I send 1 ETH | to, and if you send it 1000 USDC it'll send you the ETH. | The big counterparty risk with that system is that the | price of ETH will skyrocket and someone else will call the | contract to make the trade before I can cancel it, but that | kind of thing is hard to avoid in any system. | LeafGuild wrote: | >but that kind of thing is hard to avoid in any system. | | No it isn't, that's what limit orders are for. There's | still the exact same counterparty risk there anyway, in | the form of USDC. Circle is another big dodgy centralized | provider. The major critical flaw with all this defi | stuff is that it can only reliably trade cryptos for | other cryptos. Once you actually try to get any of it out | into real assets, the counterparty risk immediately comes | back again. No crypto defi stuff can ever solve that. The | idea is just bad, it's a scam from the very beginning. | topranks wrote: | The big risk with that system is a bug in the smart | contract that lets me take all the ETH and USDC. | Digory wrote: | But this isn't counterparty risk, it's fraud risk, right? | It sounds like "Atrium borrowed a bunch of houses from FX, | but FX didn't own the houses." When you check the Recorder | (the blockchain for houses), the deeds should all say "John | Doe owns 123 Main St." | | In the world with a Recorder of Deeds, Atrium is screwed, | and FX might be screwed, but John Doe is easily confirmed | as the owner of 123 Main. | | It sounds like people here gave their coins to FX, so that | the "deed" shows FX "owns" the coin. In effect, they | destroyed the 'trustless' part of the equation. And then | SBF violated the trust. | | So, the next innovation seems to be a blockchain that shows | an owner and an agent? | fnordpiglet wrote: | I think technically you would look at this as exchange | risk. Securities regulations exist because of precedent, | and this isn't specifically fraud but lack of customer | funds segregation from the business risks. | phas0ruk wrote: | FTX is a centralised exchange, it is not routing all customer | trades on chain. It's not a blockchain failure, it's just a | lack of client asset segregation by a traditional centralised | trading house. | Digory wrote: | So the internal trades aren't on chain. Well, that's going | to leave a mark. | | Is there a coin that distinguishes agent and owner? Seems | like you want trustless agency if you're pursuing trustless | finance. | legutierr wrote: | This is the whole idea behind DeFi. All trading is done | autonomously on-chain, and owners retain custody | throughout. | chironjit wrote: | This is the correct answer. When you move your tokens into | a centralised exchange like FTX, your funds are pooled with | everyones deposit. | | There are always deposits and wihdrawals, and of course | maybe you traded your tokens for another before | withdrawing. So its hard to parse how much customers | deposited vs genuinely withdrew, and so you cant really | tell if the exchange is short unless they declare their | actual assets and liabilities. | cma wrote: | From the Sequoia puff-piece: | | > Something of the sort must happen eventually, as the | current system, with its layers upon layers of | intermediaries, is antiquated and prone to crashing--the | global financial crisis of 2008 was just the latest in a | long line of failures that occurred because banks didn't | actually know what was on their balance sheets. Crypto is | money that can audit itself, no accountant or bookkeeper | needed, and thus a financial system with the blockchain | built in can, in theory, cut out most of the financial | middlemen, to the advantage of all. Of course, that's the | pitch of every crypto company out there. The FTX | competitive advantage? Ethical behavior. SBF is a Peter | Singer-inspired utilitarian in a sea of Robert Nozick- | inspired libertarians. He's an ethical maximalist in an | industry that's overwhelmingly populated with ethical | minimalists. I'm a Nozick man myself, but I know who I'd | rather trust my money with: SBF, hands-down. And if he | does end up saving the world as a side effect of being my | banker, all the better. | LeafGuild wrote: | It is absolutely a blockchain failure. Blockchains are | intentionally designed to facilitate this. They have no | possible way to stop this kind of fraud. Even if you built | an elaborate set of smart contracts that could audit | participants, they would still not stop anything. That | activity can just be moved to another chain and avoid the | audits. This kind of thing can just keep happening over and | over again, as it already has for the last 12 years. | Remember Mt Gox? Nothing fundamental has changed about | blockchains that could ever prevent this from happening. | It's viewed as a feature that everyone just loses their | money sometimes. The designers of blockchains _want_ this | to happen. From speaking to them, they view any kind of | fraud prevention as an affront to their definition of | "economic freedom" and what it entails. | twawaaay wrote: | That's because it is all built on greed and a lot of lies. | | The only time you actually are part of the trustless system | is when you are sole custodian of any private keys necessary | to access the coins. | | The issue with this is that a whole lot of people have no | idea what it is, how it works, how to be part of the system | and how to keep keys secure and safe at the same time. | | And it is fine. People can't know everything. | | But one thing I know, if you buy stuff you do not understand | and then you loose money, it is on you. | joe_the_user wrote: | Maybe you're thinking of Etherium or other smart-contract | systems, Etherium is a system where things like that happen | automatically. With Bitcoin, the only thing you have is a | secure (but static) ledger of who (which wallet/id) has what | bitcoins. Any transfers have to be "manually" and just | recorded by the blockchain. | | Of course, the automatic processes in Etherium produce a | bunch of other weird effects. | mccorrinall wrote: | Where does this Etherium-meme(?) come from? I've seen | several people writing Etherium and Monaro instead of | Ethereum and Monero on mailing lists, but never understood | what it means and where it comes from. | newfonewhodis wrote: | I put $100 in my Chase account. Chase goes horse betting with | my money and loses it all. My account shows $0. | | That's basically what happened here. | jefftk wrote: | Well, your account still shows $100, but Chase has paused | withdrawals while they "sort out liquidity issues" so it's | effectively $0 | ericd wrote: | Yep, this is exactly what happened en masse during the | Great Depression. People were selling their bank account | books for a fraction of their nominal value. | chlodwig wrote: | Not exactly, because banks tell you that they will loan out | your money and you might not get it back, that's why you get | interest on the account. They can't go horse betting, but | they can loan it out. You don't have "title" over the USD in | the bank reserves. | | This is like if you put $100 in _Chase 's security deposit | box_, and they opened it up, took the cash, and lent it out, | and then when you come to get it, they say, woops, we lost it | all. That would be just straight up theft or fraud. | SilasX wrote: | >Not exactly, because banks tell you that they will loan | out your money and you might not get it back, that's why | you get interest on the account. | | That's not right either. They promise you will get it back | (the FDIC insurance), just that e.g. large amounts may have | a delay. They are also scrutinized by regulators to ensure | that the loans are sane enough not to all evaporate in | value overnight, as a horse bet might. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | In the USA, bank accounts are guaranteed by the government, | up to $250K. | eftychis wrote: | Per institution. And there is a lot of consolidation. So | I would be careful. It is really easy to be placing money | into different banks, but essentially the same one. | achenatx wrote: | there are a variety of caveats, on your side it is per | entity. | | If you are married it is 500K, if you have a trust it is | like 1.25M. 250K for each beneficiary up to 5 (or | something like that). | tootie wrote: | And the FDIC can afford to do that because there are laws | dictating liquidity requirements to banks and disclosure | requirements to inspect and enforce those rules. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | It's almost as if our existing financial system, built | upon the lessons from hundreds of years, is worthwhile! | :-) | Animatronio wrote: | That's what makes it so boring, whereas DeFi is so | exciting it gives you a heart attack seemingly every | other day. | legutierr wrote: | What does DeFi have to do with any of what is happening | with FTX? | Veliladon wrote: | It's been funny to watch crypto basically speedrun the | entire monetary system from Rai stones all the way to | calls for central banking. | nostrebored wrote: | You would've been correct two years ago. We're doing zero | fractional reserve banking now. Hearing this should | convince people that they should get their money out now, | but nobody seems to care. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _We're doing zero fractional reserve banking now._ | | No; we're not. In fact, banks are positively awash with | reserves by historical standards. | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTRESNS | klodolph wrote: | I don't know about others, but I suspect that if the FDIC | ran out of money, congress would figure out a way to fund | it even if it meant printing money. I am okay with this. | nostrebored wrote: | But liquidity is the issue here. In the event that this | happens, how long would it be before you could have | access to your funds? | klodolph wrote: | Why do you say liquidity is the issue? It sounds like you | are imagining some specific scenario here. | iamthirsty wrote: | While you're correct[0], still the FDIC is guaranteeing | it up to $250k. | | [0]:https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserve | req.htm | JamesianP wrote: | It may be that what the FDIC promises to do is not in | sync with what it can actually afford to do. | iamthirsty wrote: | The FDIC, as of March 2021, has 119.4 billion[0], along | with "... a US$100 billion line of credit with the United | States Department of the Treasury.[9]"[1]. | | I think they've got enough to cover any consumer issues. | | [0]: https://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic- | plans/strategic/insuran... | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insura | nce_Corp... | JamesianP wrote: | How much is the total liability they are guaranteeing? | | And $119 billion where exactly? In US treasuries? If so | it's about as safe as the social security "fund". What if | the "customer issue" includes a govt default? | | All you're saying here is that we can treat an FDIC | guarantee like a govt guarantee, which is probably true, | but still not the same as a case where the guarantor has | actual assets which the prior poster was suggesting. The | FDIC is making promises and backing those promises with | other promises. There's not cash laying around anywhere | to back it up. I'm not saying the only response is run | for the hills like the other poster, but I find these | defenses rather naive. The likelihood of any insurance | scheme failing is not zero. Same for a government's | finances. | iamthirsty wrote: | > There's not cash laying around anywhere to back it up. | | Did you not read the part where they have $119.4 Billion | dollars? And that was a year-and-a-half ago, it's | probably closer to $130B now. It seems like you didn't | read any of the source material, let alone my comment, | before replying. | JamesianP wrote: | ...yes I did. Your post at least, which was short and | sweet. Bravo. I did not read the wiki article and don't | plan to, but I skimmed the other one. Got as far as this | at least: "Means and Strategies: The FDIC maintains the | viability of the DIF by investing the fund, monitoring | and responding to changes in the reserve ratio, | collecting risk-based premiums, and evaluating the | deposit insurance system in light of an evolving | financial services industry." | | "DIF fund" being the $119B. In my post I presumed that | 119 billion is in US Treasuries. I'm also presuming US | treasuries are not the same thing as cash. Whatever the | case, generally people don't refer to "cash laying | around" as an investment. | | EDIT: Try this much more readable doc: | https://www.fdic.gov/about/financial- | reports/reports/2020ann.... | | The $119B in assets includes only $3B in cash, with $110B | in treasuries. | fragmede wrote: | Bank of America has an estimated 67 million customers. | Assuming $250k per person, and I've got the number of | zeros right, that's $16 trillion ($16,750,000,000,000) in | liability if they were to go down, enough to sink FDIC. | iamthirsty wrote: | I think you got the math wrong, because I'm 100% sure not | all 67million customers have $250,000 in their accounts. | Being that 56% of Americans can't cover $1,000 | expense[0], and most people with >$100k assuredly have | their money in assets rather than cash, I think your math | is way, way, _way_ off. | | [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of- | americans-cant-... | nostrebored wrote: | Right, but the FDIC explicitly says large amounts may | take longer in the status quo. The only reason to have | money in the bank is for a reasonably safe, liquid form | of money. | | If they aren't providing safety or liquidity, why should | you use them? | iamthirsty wrote: | They are providing safety and liquidity, your statement | is laughable, honestly. | | The safety is personal -- no one can rob your home when | you're gone and steal the money under your mattress | because it's not under there, it's in a bank. | | And in regards to liquidity, if you can tell me the exact | day, time, and amount you tried to pull out of a consumer | bank (large household bank names) and instead of getting | cash in hand the bank told you "sorry, we spent your | money on loans, we don't have any to give you", I'd love | to see it. | | Bonus points if then the FDIC didn't cover it. | | Banks provide both safety and liquidity at the consumer | level. It would also be a really bad idea to continue to | encourage everyone to pull money out of banks and hold it | in cash -- both economically and personally. People | largely benefit from banks existing, that's, well, why | they exist! | gfd wrote: | Only tangentially related, but don't put cash in safety | deposit boxes. Police can take them under civil forfeiture | laws: | | https://nypost.com/2021/06/12/fbi-aims-to-keep- | valuables-86m... | | https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-raid-1400-boxes-us- | priva... | Spooky23 wrote: | Asset forfeiture sucks, but I'd be more worried about run | of the mill bank incompetence. Banks don't really want to | be in that business and screw up often. | roywiggins wrote: | The greater risk is probably that your bank will just | screw up and lose your stuff: | | https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/business/safe-deposit- | box... | loeg wrote: | Police can take anything anywhere under civil forfeiture; | it's truly insane. | cmeacham98 wrote: | Civil asset forfeiture is one of those things that feels | really unjust in the US, and I'm somewhat surprised there | hasn't been a Supreme Court case ruling it | unconstitutional per the 4th Amendment. | | I'd love to hear a steelmanned argument in favor of it, | maybe I'm missing something obvious? | klodolph wrote: | Civil asset forfeiture is a surprisingly complicated | network of related legal issues, unfortunately. It can be | incredibly complicated to litigate. Asset forfeiture | cases often involve the federal government and have to be | litigated in federal court, which is difficult and | expensive. | | If you want to think of laws as an ecosystem, then think | of civil asset forfeiture as a highly evolved species | with all sorts of specialized defenses. | | It seems to be slowly being ground away. The modern | version of civil asset forfeiture was as a tool to take | away the profits of drug kingpins in the 1980s and | bootleggers during prohibition. Seems like the modern | drug kingpins are companies like Johnson & Johnson, | though. | zizee wrote: | > I'd love to hear a steelmanned argument in favor of it, | maybe I'm missing something obvious? | | If it were a big shipment of plutonium laced heroin, it | seems fair game. | | I think the biggest issue with civil asset forfeiture is | the conflict of interest where police departments are | keeping/using the seized assets. From the outside it | looks a lot like the government acting like a gang. | | The other big problem is it seems like it is up to the | owner to prove the assets "innocence", rather than police | proving the assets were the result of illegal activity. | | If assets are seized, they need to go to a third party | that can store them safely, return the assets to their | owners. If found "guilty", the assets should go to some | victims of crime fund, or destroyed. | [deleted] | HideousKojima wrote: | The only steelmanned argument for civil asset forfeiture | goes back to its origins, when it was used to seize | smuggled goods on ships. Since the ship's owner was | almost always a wealthy person living in a different | country making them almost impossible to go after, and | the smuggled goods were missing tax stamps etc. making it | clear that they were being illegally smuggled, the | government would simply seize the goods. That's literally | the origin of civil asset forfeiture in the US, and all | of the horrible and unjustifiable examples of it that we | see nowadays grew out of that much more limited and | justifiable example. | tialaramex wrote: | Seems to me in the specific case of wealthy foreigner | owns smuggled good a better (more just) arrangement | accuses _them_ not the goods, but with the mechanism that | if they for some reason don 't want to attend court | (maybe because they're super guilty?) their goods are | seized but the crime still exists. | | There are some nuances to work out to ensure cops can't | accuse say Vladimir Putin of a crime involving the $8000 | they found in your house, and then since Putin doesn't | show up they keep your money, but the general idea seems | more sound than civil forfeiture. | ChadNauseam wrote: | No civil asset forfeiture: cop pulls a drug dealer over, | the drug dealer bribes the cop and is on his way. | | With civil asset forfeiture: cop pulls a drug dealer | over, the drug dealer offers to bribe the cop, the cop | laughs and takes all his stuff anyway, books him, and the | police department buys a martini machine. | | Kind of a weak case, but that was the best steelman I | could think of. | derangedHorse wrote: | As others have pointed out in comments on this post, banks | typically don't loan out customer funds and instead use | them as reserves. For loans, banks can create money out of | thin air and just increase the number representing the | borrower's bank account balance in a database somewhere. | Interest is to incentivize adding more reserves to their | balance sheets which in turn allows more loans (with | considerably larger interest rates) to be given out | shapefrog wrote: | If the 50-1 shot horse won the race, they would have put your | $100 back in your account and put $4900 in their account | [deleted] | vgeek wrote: | I know pop culture and humor is frowned upon on HN, but | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XhFTG7fFwc4 is just too | relevant to not share for this whole situation. | jojobas wrote: | Except | | 1) Chase doesn't have to show you $0, you'll still see $100. | | 2) When you decide to spend the money, chances are the seller | is also with Chase, then all Chase has to do is show you $0 | and the seller +$100 | | 3) If the seller happens to be with another bank, Chase will | just go in credit with that other bank for $100. The total of | such interbank accounts is around 0 as money flows both ways, | and, with a decent margin, within the bank reserve amount. | | Fractional-reserve banking works so well with so little | "actual" reserve money that some consider it counterfeiting. | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | Why is this getting downvoted? its a plain speech description | of what they did | RC_ITR wrote: | Because Chase actually does _something_ sort of similar | (primarily mortgage lending), but they employ _a ton_ of | people to think _all day_ about managing risk. | | So I think people don't like the comparison, since the true | difference is FTX did horse betting, while Chase does | something much more rational. | zeven7 wrote: | To add to that: Chase tells you what they're doing. FTX | told its customers it wouldn't lend it out, and then it | did. Additionally, customer accounts at Chase are insured | by FDIC up to $250k. Chase tells you they're going to bet | with your money, manages the risk well* on most days*, | and even if they lose your money you get it back anyway. | FTX did the opposite of all that. | mjn wrote: | Chase is also more restricted in how the investment | banking side of the business can use funds from the | retail banking side, precisely because banks in the 1920s | _did_ play fast and loose with investing customer | deposits, which caused a bunch of depositors to lose | savings in the 1929 crash. | | The amount of interaction between the two sides that's | allowed has increased and decreased over the years, but | it hasn't been unrestricted since the Glass-Steagall Act | of 1933: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_inve | stment_and_r... | based69 wrote: | Doesnt fannie mae/freddie mac essentially backstop a lot | of this risk too? | [deleted] | bin_bash wrote: | This is one of the reasons downturns in markets are good. If the | market would've just kept growing then SBF likely could've kept | his ponzi scheme afloat without anyone noticing. | | The 2008 recession is what really stopped Bernie Madoff. | naraga wrote: | Sure, yet, these people will mostly manage to escape. Have no | doubt they all have few mils on side and they are ready to lie | to themselves all sort of excuses to make them feel better | spending them. Sam apparently "miss-labeled" some accounts all | in pursuit to give more to charity i am pretty sure. | justin_oaks wrote: | Yes, downturns help expose "the bezzle": the gap between | perceived value and long-term economic value. | | I first learned the term "bezzle" here on Hacker News and read | more about it in the article "Why the Bezzle Matters to the | Economy": | https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/85179 | | It's an interesting read to those who enjoy economics. | guardiangod wrote: | >ponzi scheme | | This is not a ponzi scheme. This is a good old "not firewalling | your customer's money and your investment money" that everyone | suffered from in 2008. The situation is cataphoric enough | without people mis-using terms. | shmatt wrote: | >The first $10,000 USD value in your deposit wallets will | earn 8% APY | | (This is what FTX was offering customers) | | And now we know the accounts weren't actually covered by real | money (or "value" as they called it). So when person X was | asking FTX for their money back, FTX would send person X+1's | money to cover | | Sounds like a Ponzi to me | CamelCaseName wrote: | It's only a ponzi scheme if you have no underlying business | but transferring money between people. | | Presumably FTX expected that its risky bets would pay off | and that return would then fund the interest promised. | | Otherwise, would you consider corporate debt a ponzi | scheme? | [deleted] | jazzyjackson wrote: | > fund the interest promised. | | IMO this is key, the interest being paid out to account | holders was not profits from any underlying business, it | was just paid out from new "customer" deposits. | | If a corporation is in debt and paying back interest, | it's sustainable as long as the business actually has a | plan to grow. If your business is acquiring new users to | pay out obscene interest rates to your early adopters, | that's a ponzi | | (mr ponzi himself didn't mean to scam anyone either way | by the way, until he realized his postage-arbitrage plans | were going south and he scrambled not to break his | promises) | NickC25 wrote: | >Presumably FTX expected that its risky bets would pay | off and that return would then fund the interest | promised. | | So did Bernie. | | >Otherwise, would you consider corporate debt a ponzi | scheme? | | Depends on what you count as corporate debt. | | I'd have no problem buying the debt of a mature, massive | company like Apple or Microsoft, because they have hard | assets, steady cashflows, successful products on the | market. | | The debt of a zombie corporation with a useless product | that was only sustainable due to 0% interest rates? No | thanks. Is that a ponzi scheme? Probably not the | classical definition of one, but it's ponzi-adjecent. | IanCal wrote: | > So did Bernie. | | No, he just straight up didn't invest peoples money, he | paid out "gains" just from other deposits. That's why it | was a Ponzi scheme - that's what they are. | NickC25 wrote: | Initially, he did invest their money, he just didn't get | the (I believe it was) +/- 10% that he promised investors | (and was getting like clockwork) before the 08 crash. | | Once he started not being able to make those returns did | thing start to unravel. His own kids were in denial right | up until the end - almost nobody, even inside Bernie's | firm, knew it was fraudulent. | JackFr wrote: | > almost nobody, even inside Bernie's firm, knew it was | fraudulent. | | It's amazing what you can fail to know when not knowing | it keeps you out of jail. | IanCal wrote: | He hadn't been doing any trades for 15+ years when it all | fell apart. | squeaky-clean wrote: | The original scheme by Ponzi himself was based around | profiting from arbitrage from postage stamps. He promised | 50% returns within 90 days and couldn't keep up with his | claims in a legitimate manner. | jcpham2 wrote: | FWIW I have difficulty distinguishing the difference | between a Ponzi scheme and "The Time Value of Money" | concept itself. Every place I see that offers interest on | crypto deposits, I fear they have no business plan to | generate the profits to pay the interest on a deflationary | fake internet money in the first place. | | My fear is they are just Ponzi-ing on Wayne! seeking the | next highest interest rate holding the biggest bag, hoping | the 'ol Time Value of Money will save their ass. | | The whole house of cards has a lot to do with the | _velocity_ at which the money moves and whether it's | stagnating or generating interest somewhere else. | | My rant is over. None of this stuff has affected me. | largepeepee wrote: | Simple. | | It is always can you trust the other party. | | And that's the basis of society, government and money. | JALTU wrote: | Time value of money is not the same. It's actually simple | and elegant and flexible, and to your point, you want to | see the borrower have a plan, so to speak. Or cash flows. | Or collateral. Or all of the above. And still, you can | lose. But the concept of the price of money is separate | from that. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | >Every place I see that offers interest on crypto | deposits, I fear they have no business plan to generate | the profits to pay the interest on a deflationary fake | internet money in the first place. | | You are correct. Literally every place offering high | interest rates on crypto deposits is a Ponzi scheme. | jrm4 wrote: | What makes it not a ponzi? Is the idea that "the possibility | that number may go up" the only thing to distinguish it? | oldgradstudent wrote: | According to Wikipedia a Ponzi scheme | | > is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits | to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. | | So if they are paying yield while actually losing money and | covering it up by recruiting new clients then it's a Ponzi | scheme. | colinmhayes wrote: | So my understanding is that alameda needed more capital to | fund its operations that had a track record of success, so | sbf created ftx and gave customer assets to alameda to | invest. So the business thesis here isn't "use new user | money to pay old users" it's "steal all the users money to | invest and hope the investments continue to be profitable." | I guess they started ponzi-ing once alameda went bust but | that wasn't the original plan, although that's probably | true for most ponzi's. | [deleted] | steveBK123 wrote: | Even in 2008 that is not what happened. | | Tell me which retail brokerages lost their customers assets | because they gambled them away? | | There is no glossing over the fact that all these crypto | explosions are a result of largely re-implementing a pre-Fed, | pre-FDIC, pre Great Depression style banking system with all | its long-patched defects. | arcticbull wrote: | ... except in a way that fundamentally prevents the patches | and even lauds the defects. | steveBK123 wrote: | Yes, exactly.. this is the end state for crypto rather | than a step towards being a normal market that normal | people can use | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _" not firewalling your customer's money and your | investment money" that everyone suffered from in 2008_ | | ... cite for this, please. I don't recall there being any | significant client money problems in that period. | guardiangod wrote: | You are right. Even though there were cases in 2008 they | weren't significant contributors to the great recession. | oldgradstudent wrote: | I don't think this was a major problem in the 2008 crisis. | | John Corzine's MF Global was a well known case in 2011. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_Global | VHRanger wrote: | They used FTT as collateral for loans used on trading | activities that boosted FTT value | | It's not literally a Ponzi, but it's Ponzi adjacent behavior, | like what Bill Hwang did. | colinmhayes wrote: | Bill hwang didn't even take investor money. How did you | come to the conclusion that his behavior was ponzi | adjacent? | quickthrowman wrote: | Bill Hwang lied about his market exposure to the brokers | who sold him the equity swaps. It was just garden variety | fraud with no ponzi adjacent behavior at all. | Kstarek wrote: | He actually didn't lie lol, they knew they just didn't | care as he was a very profitable customer | abraae wrote: | It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who has been | swimming naked. | | Warren Buffett | knorker wrote: | "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been | swimming naked" | SilverBirch wrote: | I think at this point anyone who has any involvement in crypto | needs to ask themselves the following question: Are you Molly? | | Becuase if not, you're fucked. She's the only one walking out of | this shitshow with a reputation. | [deleted] | NelsonMinar wrote: | To summarize, the WSJ article says he took $10B of $16B in | customer deposits to FTX and used that to finance his hedge fund. | reso wrote: | ...and then the hedge fund lost the whole $10B. Corruption AND | incompetence. | MrMan wrote: | or just spent it? | moralestapia wrote: | Or stole it. | bagels wrote: | Seems like blaming the economy/stock market can make for | a good cover if nobody looks too hard. | michael1999 wrote: | Looks like much of it was spent filling in the bezzle left | from the early blow-ups in terra, etc. He was trying to prop | up the whole ecosystem. | jbverschoor wrote: | Damn, that's nearly 2/3. Insane. | RadixDLT wrote: | this dude is Bernie Madoff 2.0 | digianarchist wrote: | He's more like Nick Leeson than Bernie Madoff. | rchaud wrote: | You know those corner stores that act as Western Union/Moneygram | agents? They have to follow stronger regulations (KYC/AML/BSA) | and are audited on a quarterly basis by WU/MG to ensure there is | no co-mingling of funds. | | A bodega conducts better financial oversight than these masters | of the cryptoverse. | selimthegrim wrote: | Did SBF have any cats in the office? That should have been a | warning sign. | zhoujianfu wrote: | Are you referencing Tibanne?! | zenapollo wrote: | steveBK123 wrote: | Banks lend your deposits out. Banks do not play the market with | your deposits. Anything close to that ended in 2008. | | And even the banks that did so, given they were FDIC insured | and part of the Fed Reserve banking system did not leave any | customers in the hole. | | We can argue about taxpayer bailouts and bad incentives, but | the system worked the way it was supposed to - normal people | can put their money in a bank account knowing they will be able | to get it back out, come hell or high water. | zenapollo wrote: | > Banks lend your deposits out. Banks do not play the market | with your deposits. Anything close to that ended in 2008. | | True that the Volcker rule of Dodd-Frank 2010 eliminated | banks using deposits for prop trading as well as other | gambling loopholes. That is, until it was weakened in 2019 by | R Congress and Trump admin. | | https://www.americanprogress.org/article/hollowing- | volcker-r... | | In any case, I would agree that the FDIC is the big | difference, backed by the Fed printing press. | arcticbull wrote: | > Fed printing press | | Fed doesn't print money, Treasury prints money. Money is | created when banks lend. The FDIC DIF (deposit insurance | fund) is $125B and funded entirely by private contributions | from member banks. They have a $100B line of credit at | Treasury if things go pear shaped but generally they have | the authority to seize failing institutions and sell the | accounts to other banks without touching the DIF let alone | the backup line of credit. They did this in 2008, selling | WaMu to JPMorgan. | zenapollo wrote: | I did not know how the FDIC was backed, thank you. | | However, yes the treasury is an actual printing press, | but the money supply is controlled by The Fed. They tell | the treasury how much to print, they can provide | unlimited liquidity to banks, and they are the largest | backer of govt debt. | izzydata wrote: | I suspect you need to be a bank and aren't allowed to make such | risky bets. | [deleted] | arcticbull wrote: | How does this question keep coming up? It's obvious. | | 1. Banks _create_ money when they lend. This is the job that | their Fed has conferred to them. They do so under a strict | regulatory framework and with very tight risk requirements. | Lending is where money comes from. | | 2. Fractional reserve works because banks are backed by the | FDIC which has a massive deposit insurance fund ($125B). The | FDIC has a massive line of credit ($100B) with the Treasury in | case _that_ ever runs out. And they have the authority to take | possession of failed institutions and sell the accounts like | they did in 2008 with WaMu (under OTS). When WaMu went under | the bank was sold to JPMorgan and nobody lost a penny _without_ | touching the DIF. | | 3. FTX was backed by nobody and nothing. | | 4. We know how banks operate, it's public and transparent. If | FTX told depositors it was taking their money and gambling with | it, and planned to stick them with the losses while keeping all | the profit for themselves (a) that would be one thing and (b) | nobody would sign up for that. | | > Most deposits are used for gambling by banks | | No they're not. | | > The US fractional reserve requirement for banks is 10%. | | No it's not, it's 0%. | | > If SBF was gambling with only 10B of 16B that's a 37% reserve | - conservative by banking standards. | | No it's not. It's wildly irresponsible by any standard. | oldgradstudent wrote: | Just two days ago he claimed that they were not investing | customer funds. A few hours ago he deleted that Tweet. | | That moves it into fraud territory. | colinmhayes wrote: | He wasn't, he was just loaning them to his other company. | lordnacho wrote: | Loaning things out == investing | cbzbc wrote: | Loaning them to invest them. | latchkey wrote: | Seems so odd to delete a tweet at this point. It isn't like | it disappears. | vkou wrote: | It's different in a lot of ways. The most important one that | you've missed is that banks don't need to have enough liquidity | to cover customer deposits, but they do need to have enough | _assets_. If a bank 's assets ever drop below its liabilities, | it is _immediately liquidated_ , the shareholders lose | everything, and insurance steps in to fix any gaps. | | SBF has neither liquidity nor assets sufficient to cover its | deposits, because most of his assets was a pile of worthless | fartcoin that he printed for himself, but pretended that it was | worth billions. And because he was not properly audited[1], his | equity wasn't immediately liquidated to cover the gap, when the | gap could still be covered. | | ... Also, reserve requirements have nothing to do with this | particular failure case. They have everything to do with | issuing loans, and the rate at which money is created | (inflation!), but this wasn't a failure caused by issuing | loans. | | [1] It's weird how VC due diligence seems to go out the window | as soon as their money starts funding a hot new crypto scam. | It's almost as if they are playing a heads-we-win-big, tails- | we-lose-nothing-but-our-investment game... | oldgradstudent wrote: | > If a bank's assets ever drop below its liabilities, it is | immediately liquidated, the shareholders lose everything, and | insurance steps in to fix any gaps. | | That's how it's supposed to work. We've all found out in 2008 | that's no longer the case. | | The FDIC took over and sold or liquidated a few hundred small | banks and a handful of medium sized banks. The big ones were | considered to be too big to fail and were bailed out. The | shareholders of these bing banks did not lose everything, and | even the subordinated debt was payed (e.g. Citi). | vkou wrote: | > That's how it's supposed to work. We've all found out in | 2008 that's no longer the case. | | 1. Not every bank that became insolvent had a hole on their | balance sheet that required all of their equity to be wiped | out to fill. The shareholders got a haircut proportionate | to how big those holes were. | | 2. The rot would have gone far deeper, and the holes could | not have been covered if those bank balance sheets looked | anything like FTX's did. Banks, for the most part, faced a | liquidity crisis, not an insolvency crisis, and the owners | of the ones that faced the latter were, for all intents and | purposes, wiped out. | | 3. The FDIC is funded by banks, not by taxpayers. The FDIC | only cares about customer deposits, it doesn't give two | figs about _investments_. | | The controversial, taxpayer bailouts were not for retail | banks (The FDIC was designed a very long ago to handle this | case, and handled it well, without dipping into the public | purse), they were for shit like AIG. And speaking of | shareholder equity, that didn't do so hot. Their public | valuation went down 98% from 2007 to 2008, and is, as of | today, down 75% from their peak. I wouldn't have wanted to | have been a shareholder. | arcticbull wrote: | So bail-outs weren't grants, they were loans, and the loans | have been repaid netting a massive windfall to the | government over over $100B with many more billions to come, | a ton of jobs were saved and it's hard to argue that they | were at all a bad thing. [1] This is coming from someone | who at the time thought the bailouts were a bad idea. | | [1] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ | NelsonMinar wrote: | Banks are highly regulated in exactly how much of the deposits | they can use and what kind of risks they can take with it. This | is complicated: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement | | Also in the US at least banks are FDIC insured, so if the bank | is breaking the law and gambling inappropriately consumers are | still protected. | | "How is crypto different than a bank" is a reductive and | foolish comparison. There are many, many differences. The | primary one being that almost every cryptocurrency system is a | fraud at its heart. | duncancarroll wrote: | > "every cryptocurrency system is a fraud at its heart." | | I'm not sure I agree with you on that part. | | Fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended | to result in financial or personal gain." Encryption-based | currency by itself does not meet that definition. | | Can people use crypto to commit fraud? Yes, just the same as | they could use fiat or anything else that has perceived | value. | | imho the main value of crypto as a technology is that it is | A) decentralized, and B) removes many intermediaries & | inefficiencies involved in handling + distributing money. | </$0.02> | NelsonMinar wrote: | You misquoted me; I said "almost every cryptocurrency | system" for a reason. | | A thread where we're discussing a guy using $10B of $16B of | cryptocurrency customer deposits to finance his private | hedge fund gambling is not a good place to try to make your | argument. | zenapollo wrote: | Of course you're right that they are very different. But "at | it's heart" all money is imagined. Dollars are simply backed | by all the most powerful institutions on the planet. | | The reason I asked is because it seems to me that people are | clutching their pearls and saying this is stealing. But as I | see it, the difference between FTX and Chase Bank are that | Chase has a lot of rules and regulations, and a good | insurance policy. But "at it's heart" SFB is no different | than Jamie Dimon. The ethics of what SFB did and what | American banks would like to do is exactly the same. | vkou wrote: | At heart a snake oil salesman and a doctor are no | different, but only one of them actually helps people. | [deleted] | CaptainZapp wrote: | Banks usually don't hold their assets in funny money tokens. | | There are quite strict rules about their capitalization and the | quality of the underlying assets. | hmahncke wrote: | Remarkable that a venture-backed company can loan $10B to the | founder's hedge fund without running into some sort of | board/corporate sign-off that's required to literally execute the | agreement/fund transfer. | ksherlock wrote: | WSJ has another article with more information on that: | | https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-poured-money-int... | | "Silicon Valley Poured Money Into FTX, With Few Strings | Attached" | | "A marquee roster of investors from Silicon Valley and Wall | Street swarmed FTX. They invested nearly $2 billion with few | strings attached and no oversight on the cryptocurrency | exchange's board, promoting it as a safe bet." | | Anyhow, The board of directors consisted of SBF until the | summer of 2021. Then 2 "independent" directors were added, 1 | was an FTX executive, the other was a lawyer in Antigua | skippyboxedhero wrote: | The recent Sebastian Mallaby book about VC charts the growth | of this "founder rules" approach. | | In the age of ESG, it turns out that the "G" part is being | ignored totally (because it counter to the interests of | insiders) but the "E" and "S" is ever more important (because | it is in the interests of insiders) despite it doing little | to help improve returns (SBF was the king of "S"...might | there be a correlation between saying you are more ethical | than anyone and permitting yourself to steal from | customers?). | shaburn wrote: | Would this even be possible at any hedge fund? | cjtrowbridge wrote: | Of course not. Crypto is a vehicle for tech founders to do | all the unethical things that are banned in traditional | finance without technically breaking the law. | tanseydavid wrote: | Not a hedge fund but MF Global/Jon Corzine was an interesting | similar incident that was not crypto-related. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine | | > Corzine was subpoenaed to appear before a House committee | on December 8, 2011, to answer questions regarding 1.2 | billion dollars of missing money from MF Global client | accounts. He testified before the committee, "I simply do not | know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been | reconciled to date," and that given the number of money | transfers in the final days of trading at MF Global, he | didn't know specifics of the movement of the funds. He also | denied authorizing any misuse of customer funds. | | > On the day of MF Global's bankruptcy, a Bloomberg reporter | wrote "Jon Corzine's risk appetite helped destroy his firm. | It also provided an object lesson for Paul Volcker's campaign | against proprietary trading on Wall Street." | nonameiguess wrote: | And for anyone who wasn't familiar with this guy and | doesn't click on the link, he was a US Senator and then NJ | Governor who ran this fund immediately after leaving | office. He's the guy Chris Christie replaced. | lordnacho wrote: | I was partner at a couple of hedge funds. Every fund has its | own docs, but normally it is going to restrict you to sending | money to specific things, you can't just do anything you | want. Certainly you cannot just lend it to yourself if you | want serious investors, they do a whole due diligence | questionnaire about what sign-off is needed, who can sign, | audits, and so on. | | I remember a friend with a fund, he was in a short-term | pickle waiting for some money to bridge a house purchase. | Didn't even cross his mind to lend it to himself and pay it | back two weeks later, even though that would have been nearly | risk free and a minuscule proportion of the fund. | cbtacy wrote: | They had no real board. They had no real governance. What's | amazing is that large venture funds would put this much money | into this kind of company without any board seats. | largepeepee wrote: | Really shows how little oversight any of these venture funds | have. | | They come across more like frat bros with huge pockets | casually giving away billions under a pinky promise of | eventual returns. | | At this point, they are doing the same level of DD as those | degens in WSB. | | But I guess you don't have much leverage when the fed is | printing trillions for years and we end up with dozens of | Zuckerberg types, too much power and no oversight to hold | them accountable. | pge wrote: | It is dangerous to extrapolate from one case (or even a few | notable cases in recent years) that venture funds have | "little oversight" over portfolio companies. These are the | exceptions rather than the rule. | | Obviously, some boards are better than others at oversight, | but the complete absence of a functioning board, as was the | case at FTX, is definitely very, very unusual. | largepeepee wrote: | Like you have conceded, there are more than a few notable | cases in recent years. | | Often hiding their "secret sauce", which often turn out | to be lies and deception for a variety of reasons. | | It is no longer very very "unusual" when free loans, | credit and liquidity has been floating around for years | thanks to the money printer. | huevosabio wrote: | It feels like a very Adam Neumann move. | FormerBandmate wrote: | Sequoia did a nauseating, hilarious puff piece on him a | couple months ago and this guy sounds like Adam Neumann's | second coming. | | https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried- | spotlig... | lavezzi wrote: | Will need the Wayback Machine as they are trying to damage | control: https://web.archive.org/web/20221027180943/https:/ | /www.sequo... | paganel wrote: | > SBF himself has amassed more wealth in a shorter period | of time than anyone else, ever. The 2022 Forbes | Billionaires List pegs SBF's net worth at $24 billion. | He's now 30 years old. But we get ahead of ourselves. | | This is just gold. | | Hopefully this all circus going down will also bring down | all the phonies from VC companies like Sequoia Capital, | guys (they're mostly guys, of course) who still live off | the few successful bets they made in the early 2000s. We | need fraudster-enablers like Sequoia to actually go bust | if we really want for our industry to find its lustre | again and for real innovation to come back. | | Later edit: I've mostly gone through all of it, and I | have to say that that that archived article is pure | genius, it has copy-paste-ble gem after copy-paste-ble | gem. It would most probably deserve its own, separate | submission, on HN. | | In a saner investment environment that sort of article, | and the huge fraud the people behind it helped perpetuate | by giving this SBF guy money (one of the Skype founders, | really? the rationalist community, really?) should help | bring some people down, and in so doing leaving our | industry, well, cleaner. | | But I'm pretty sure that nothing like that will happen, | the small fries will be too scared to call these people | out as fraudster-enablers, thinking that they might need | money from them at some future point, the other sharks in | the pool will behave like nothing has ever happened, | hoping that the regulatory powers that be will move | along, to say nothing of the politicians, after all, to | quote Vox, SBF is "one of Biden's biggest donors" [1]. | | To re-capitulate, one of the US president's biggest | donors has just defrauded people out of $10 billion (that | we know of) while some of the biggest | figures/institutions in the US tech industry had stood | behind him. Business as usual in the rules-based United | States. | | [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/3/20/22335209/sam- | bankman-fr... | Cipater wrote: | >But, right there, between a bright yellow sunshade and | the crumb-strewn red-brick floor, SBF's purpose in life | was set: He was going to get filthy rich, for charity's | sake. All the rest was merely execution risk. | discodave wrote: | I managed to get this screenshot at least: | | https://twitter.com/findgriffin/status/1590822569883873280 | threeseed wrote: | When I was first read it I thought it was a parody, Silicon | Valley style. | | But Sequoia this prestigious VC has been shown to be | childish, incompetent, reckless and completely | unprofessional. | | It will be forever be a stain on them. | [deleted] | robocat wrote: | HN discussion (138 comments so far): | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33549059 | rogerkirkness wrote: | Self dealing | radicaldreamer wrote: | The people who invest in venture funds need to demand better | governance for portfolio companies, otherwise this will | continue to happen. | nemothekid wrote: | Sequioa, who invested in FTX quite loudly, reported to their | LPs that they only lost 150MM in their fund that had 7.5B in | realized gains. Going off their letter they took 5B and | turned it into 12.5B for a return of 150%[0]. | | After this spectacular blowup barely put a dent in their | returns, why would LPs demand anything? Sequioa will just | tell them "hey it's the name of the game, there are some | losers who go bankrupt and winners who return the entire fund | several times over". | | If Sequioa took a massive markdown on FTX that would be a | different story. However they came out unscathed and looks | like they are managed well despite fellating SBF quite | openly. What would you even demand of them given that they | didn't lose much money? They probably lose even more money on | companies that end up just not being successful in the first | place. You can't ask them to not invest in risky business, | thats the whole point of VC. | | [0] Could be misinterpreting the letter, they said FTX was 3% | of commited capital, 150M / 3% = 5B, and they had 7.5B of | realized and unrealized gains. | skippyboxedhero wrote: | I mentioned this is another reply, so sorry for anyone who | reads both. | | I would read Mallaby's history of the VC industry to see why | this isn't possible. Around 1997 the balance of power shifted | heavily in favour of founders (this is when dual-share class) | started, and they stopped demanding seats on the board. | | Iirc, Sequoia was a firm that held out (along with other old- | style funds), they missed out on a lot of companies over the | next ten years so ended up racing to the bottom...this is how | we got here. | | Btw, just on corporate governance...it is the most important | factor for a company. A lot of the issues with corporates we | have today are due to poor oversight from shareholders (not | helped by passive). If corporate governance isn't working, | capitalism won't work either. | pge wrote: | I generally agree, but it's not "people," it's institutional | funds (endowments, pension funds, etc). The way venture | returns are distributed is that a small number of funds (of | which Sequioia has historically been one) stand out from the | rest in terms of returns. With the lengthy bull market that | we have had until this year, VC was a high-performing asset | class. Pension fund and endowment managers felt they needed | to be in the asset class, which really meant being in those | top 10 or so funds that were generating outsized returns. | When LPs are competing to get into a few top funds, the funds | have all the leverage. My sense is that LPs don't feel like | they can make any kind of demands on the VC funds, for fear | of being blocked out of investing. | | Now we have a market turn and VC is unlikely to sustain the | returns of the past decade. That may shift the leverage, but | history suggests that LPs will still not put any kind of | meaningful pressure on the top funds to do anything | different. | returnInfinity wrote: | can do only in crypto | [deleted] | LatteLazy wrote: | Based on a claim by one anonymous source, that SBF told them | that. | | Might be true, but papers (especially ones like the WSJ) should | not publish such pap. | cycrutchfield wrote: | Are you not aware of how journalism works? | bin_bash wrote: | There is absolutely 0 chance that the WSJ would run an article | with a headline like this without verifying the information | with multiple parties. That verification is often off-the- | record so you won't read about it in the article. | somuchfordonor wrote: | > Alameda's CEO is Caroline Ellison, a Stanford University | graduate who like Mr. Bankman-Fried previously worked for | quantitative trading firm Jane Street Capital. Alameda is based | in Hong Kong, where FTX was headquartered before relocating to | the Bahamas last year. | | Are the folks at Jane Street making money because they are smart, | or because they use that perception to perpetuate some scam? | | I interact with a lot of Harvard kids. Some of them are from Long | Island, they know dads who work at that Republican's hedge fund. | They are smart kids. They have good cognitive gifts. | | But not once - not from word of mouth, or directly from them, or | someone, ever, anywhere - have I heard a common sense way these | guys make money due to intelligence, instead of due to a scam or | due to luck. | | It is really frustrating. So much human potential wasted on | chasing the dollar sign. They are in denial that it is scams. | | It has always been scams. Why is this so hard to believe? Why in | the absence of any positive evidence, like "oh here is our genius | but nonetheless expired" trading strategy, which anyone could | have furnished in the last two decades, they agree, oh it must be | real? | | The simple answer seems, because if you believe it to be real, | you can be this specific kind of Harvard + New York + "X" kid - | and seriously, they are all cut from the same jib, superficially | and inside their character, it tarnishes the institution - and | you can do this scam and pocket your change and eat dim sum with | 20 people on the weekends and have a skinny girlfriend and buy a | condo. You can do something pretty meaningless with your life in | exchange for the burn out. | | This scam life lets 20 year olds not hear from their horrible | parents that burned them out and gave them no meaning. Eventually | they turn 30 and hope that a decade went by without a crash, and | then life decides for them to sell before the ponzi collapses. | Like you have a baby with your skinny girlfriend and you buy the | condo and great, you sell, and it happens to be well timed! | | I fucking hate Jane Street, I have hated them since I've known | the assholes who intern there, and I don't know why this Bankman- | Fried guy got such a big pass for scamming literally millions of | people, and why this Caroline girl isn't going to be sent to | jail, and it's frustrating because you can actually tell! You can | predict this from when these kids are 20! | justinbaker84 wrote: | This is a very well articulated comment. Thank you for laying | this out so clearly. I don't know any hedge fund types so it is | helpful to hear from somebody who does. | [deleted] | govg wrote: | Everything in their comment points to them not having a clue | about the financial industry in general or about how hedge | funds / trading firms generate revenue or even try to. | markisus wrote: | But you actually can make money honestly by finding mispricings | in the market. Eg Buffet, or Burry during the housing crisis. | | You can also make money through arbitrage or other brief | financial blips that occur in the market. | | These things aren't really scams in the normal sense. | somuchfordonor wrote: | > honestly by finding mispricings in the market. Eg Buffet, | or Burry during the housing crisis. | | Like who wants to be on the other side of a Jane Street | transaction? Absolutely fucking nobody. If you're talking | about "mispricings" during the "housing crisis," my dude, | nobody wanted to sell their house to these dumb fucks! They | were going to starve, they had no choice! How does that not | seem like a scam of some sort to you? That's not honest | money! | | Those 20 year olds with Math degrees from Harvard. They don't | fucking know _anything_ dude, they did not discover a model, | they did not make a model with a price that says price is | lower than this other price, then persuade some people to | make some bet. That 's a _parallel reconstruction_ , that's | to justify whatever actual scam is going on. How do you not | see that? | | There's no common sense reason Math 55 equips you with some | magical vision into pricing that actually winds up _meaning_ | anything. When it does, it might as well be _random_. | | If the Mercers were good people, would they be Republicans? | No dude. C'mon, use common sense. Don't get hung up on | "normal sense." Use _common sense_. | | If Sam Bankman-Fried was a good person, would he fuck $10b | out of his own god damned customers' money? | | No dude, he's made some unspecific, previously-bankrupt-and- | now-literally-bankrupt promise to donate some money to | something somewhere in the future, to whitewash the fact that | he just went around fucking everyone. | | I mean get a grip Effective Altruists, whose guts I hate too, | and whose energy is the stereotype of the student I am | talking about - the same students! - where they get this | readily packaged "religion" that happens to align exactly | with their meaning-bankrupt approach to life. | | So don't even get on it with the "honest" money. I can find | the venture capitalists who take some dumb person's money and | then hand it over to something risky and interesting: I see | how VC is honest, it's just not necessarily intelligent, but | it's redeemable. But the Jane Street people: No dude. Not | Warren Buffet, not Burry, none of those vultures. | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Like who wants to be on the other side of a Jane Street | transaction? Absolutely fucking nobody. If you're talking | about "mispricings" during the "housing crisis," my dude, | nobody wanted to sell their house to these dumb fucks! They | were going to starve, they had no choice! How does that not | seem like a scam of some sort to you? That's not honest | money! | | This comment makes me think you don't have the slightest | idea of how the financial sector works, how Warren Buffet | makes money, what happened in 07-08 or how Michael Burry | made money during the crisis. | | >If the Mercers were good people, would they be | Republicans? No dude. C'mon, use common sense. Don't get | hung up on "normal sense." Use common sense. | | This comment makes me think you are just a troll. | | >But the Jane Street people: No dude. Not Warren Buffet, | not Burry, none of those vultures. | | This is just ignorant. If Warren Buffet looks at Coca-Cola | and thinks hey this stock is under-priced and will be worth | more in the next decade and makes 10B off it there's no | scam involved. Michael Burry evidently read through | hundreds of Mortgage Backed Securities and saw that the | underlying assets were more risky then they were priced at | and made a killing betting against them. No scam. I'm not | privy to what Jane Street's techniques are but it's most | likely some ML driven search for alpha but again nothing | screams scam. They aren't taking retail investor money, you | couldn't invest with them even if you wanted to. Where's | the scam? | | All of your posts reek of paranoid delusions frankly. | tedunangst wrote: | How many houses do you think Jane Street was buying up? | amluto wrote: | > But not once - not from word of mouth, or directly from them, | or someone, ever, anywhere - have I heard a common sense way | these guys make money due to intelligence, instead of due to a | scam or due to luck. | | Financial markets have a fascinating property: any well-known | strategy that can be implemented at reasonable cost [0] stops | working. This is because people implement it and the profit | goes away. If Jane Street has a common sense strategy or three | that makes money, they're not telling you about it. | | (I'm taking about actual market profits here. It is well known | that you can make _lots_ of money by charging fees on a | lackluster fund as long as you can find investors.) | | [0] The cost issue is real, and the relevant parameter is some | combination of _profit_ (revenue - opex), capex and risk. For | example, one can make money (revenue) by being the fastest | market on the block. But the revenue there is approximately | bounded and competition has driven the cost up to insane | levels, so it is _not_ straightforward to do this profitably. | itsdrewmiller wrote: | The original comment addresses that concern: | | >Why in the absence of any positive evidence, like "oh here | is our genius but nonetheless expired" trading strategy, | which anyone could have furnished in the last two decades, | they agree, oh it must be real? | | I agree that there should be some obviously awesome things | these funds did that they can share now given they are no | longer able to exploit them. I have no idea if they have done | so and I and GP are just not aware of it. | jeffreyrogers wrote: | There are known expired strategies that generated large | profits for long periods of time. In some cases the people | involved in developing the strategies have directly | published things explaining what they did. | 121789 wrote: | Do you have any examples? Would be interested to read | sone | elijaht wrote: | Article mentions one (bitcoin arbitrage) | taliesinb wrote: | I'd be fascinated to read these published things if | anyone can point to them! | jeffreyrogers wrote: | The books and articles by Ed Thorpe are a good place to | start. | tych0 wrote: | And at least in SBF/Alameda's case, they did, and you can | google it. IIUC it was basic arbitrage, the hard part was | figuring out how to interface with Japan's banks. | | Maybe the guy is a bad dude, I don't have a horse in that | race. But lots of trading strategies that have worked in | the past are well known. | espadrine wrote: | That is part of it. The Sequoia piece[0] describes what | kicked off Alameda Research: after a tumultuous hard fork, | there used to be a discrepancy between the price of Bitcoin | in JPY at a Japanese exchange, and that in a US exchange. | So he opened a Japanese account, bought a bitcoin in the US | for a low price, and sold it in Japan for a high price. | | To be clear, it is described by SBF. I haven't verified | historical prices to confirm it. The journalist that wrote | this article probably hasn't either. | | [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221110141739/https://www | .sequo... | peyton wrote: | He claims to have been wiring $25m a day from a BoA | branch to banks in rural Japan. Total horseshit. | somuchfordonor wrote: | I see a lot of variations on these arbitrage and secrecy | themes. | | Arbitrage that sticks around for years: those are scams dude. | They involve collusion, not intelligence. I understand it | might not be illegal collusion, but if either side of the | transaction being scammed found out, they would find someone | else to work with. | | Trust me, I know. I've worked in ad tech. | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Trust me, I know. I've worked in ad tech. | | Trust me I know about the inner workings of the Financial | world because I did an internship at a Digital Marketing | agency and totally didn't get coldly rejected by Jane | Street when I applied for their Head of Trading position | that I totally deserve because I'm like way smarter than | those Harvard Math 55 morons. | | Lol this is S tier cope or A tier trolling. | DebtDeflation wrote: | The obvious suspicion, for any company that is both a | market maker and doing prop trading, is that they're | engaging in some sort of front running. They're probably | doing it in a highly obfuscated non-trivial way otherwise | they'd get caught quickly, but nevertheless are using their | visibility into trillions of dollars worth of order flow to | shape their own trading strategy. | bwi4 wrote: | I just assume everyone but retail has order flow data | now. | solveit wrote: | I mean, yeah. For arbitrage to stick around for years it | requires that the person who first found it be years ahead | of the curve, and that's really hard to do just by being | smarter than the competition. The vast, vast majority of | these will be collusion, or regulatory capture, or literal | fraud, or whatever where the competition knows full well | what you're doing, but can't/won't jump in for completely | unrelated reasons. | | But finding lots of different things to arbitrage and | consistently being two weeks ahead of the competition _is_ | something you can do with a dedicated team of smart, | experienced people, and this is the business model that | Jane Street and others claim to be running. | deck4rd wrote: | Jane Street has been purchasing advertisements with popular | math YouTubers[1][2] recently, and it really bothers me. Think | how many young, mathematically curious people are watching | these channels and getting told that working for Jane Street is | a worthwhile use of their time and intelligence. | | [1]: Numberphile, e.g. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBU9E-ZOZAI | | [2]: Stand-up Maths (Matt Parker), e.g. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGoRJePORHs | cauthon wrote: | I largely agree, but what does dim sum have to do with any of | this | tedunangst wrote: | Dude got pranked and had somebody order chicken feet one | time, has been living a life of resentment ever since. | chasd00 wrote: | I hear what you're saying but consider we're going on two | entire generations of brilliant people being spent largely on | just putting an ad on your phone and computer. The stock market | isn't the only waste of intelligence. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Income is a combination of two main factors: | | 1. The value you add to the economic 'stream' flowing around | you | | 2. The amount you're able to divert out of that and into your | own control | | These are influenced by a number of secondary factors: | | 1. Starting capital to buy tools and resources to increase your | ability to contribute | | 2. The ability to help others increase their contributions, or | less charitably, the ability to take credit for the | contributions of others | | 3. A willingness or unwillingness to pillage the commons | | A humble farmer can work some acres of land, use his mind to | know what best to grow, use his hands to make it happen, trust | the sun and rain to grow the crops, and sell the harvest for a | value greater than the cost to lease the land and buy the seed. | With a million-dollar combine, cultivators, spreaders, center- | pivot irrigation systems, an all the other features of modern | agriculture, he can reap a much greater - more valuable - | harvest. | | But when a dealership has negotiated exclusive rights over a | region, and the salesmen take a non-negotiable commission of | sales, does the salesman who connects the farmer to the combine | he knows he needs deserve thousands of dollars for closing that | sale, just because he's situated himself between the farmer and | the manufacturer? | | When Wall Street or Jane Street sees that our massive farm | industry needs massive numbers of combines - it's a $500B | industry - and they're able to siphon off a percent of that | industry's output for "providing liquidity" just because their | Daddy knows some people, while the farmer's Daddy worked | 18-hour-days every harvest season until he died, and the former | is a multimillionaire by age 30 while the latter might make | $200k during 4 of 5 seasons and lose $300k in a bad year...it | just doesn't feel right. | sidewndr46 wrote: | You're glossing over the fact that part 1 of your income | equation is irrelevant if you can get the government on your | side. | mrguyorama wrote: | In the US, you don't get the government on your side | without money and connections. | danans wrote: | > 3. A willingness or unwillingness to pillage the commons | | This is an important point. As we've pushed the limits of our | natural resources, and woken up to the externalized costs of | some of our ways of creating value (i.e. respiratory disease | from fossil fuel based energy), this is increasingly going to | require us to re-evaluate how we define 'value' added to the | economic stream. | | > But when a dealership has negotiated exclusive rights over | a region, and the salesmen take a non-negotiable commission | of sales, does the salesman who connects the farmer to the | combine he knows he needs deserve thousands of dollars for | closing that sale, just because he's situated himself between | the farmer and the manufacturer? | | I'm not arguing for any value added by middle-men in your | example, but sales people provide a service that many of us | "maker" types don't want to deal with, which is to engage | "socially" with potential customers. Selling and buying an | expensive product or service is often a social act. That | social act has a value in some spaces. | zen21 wrote: | > 1. The value* you add to the economic 'stream' flowing | around you | | *Real or imagined value. | 22SAS wrote: | I work in the industry at a market-maker. Jane Street is a lot | more than just these two people. Prop trading firms and some | quantitative hedge funds are a lot different than traditional | hedge funds. Jane Street is mainly an ETF market maker, and are | very good in that. They make their money because some of their | core strategies work very well. | | Also, JS has low attrition and traders there mostly stay long- | term since it's a very trader-first place than some other | places like HRT, Jump. Both SBF and Ellison had short tenures | at JS. | skippyboxedhero wrote: | SBF tried to throw Ellison under the bus in his latest tweet | storm saying that he was shutting the fund down and that her | tweets (some of which appear to have been either straight lies | or attempts to manipulate the market) weren't approved by him. | | I would suspect that both of them get into legal trouble. | | Btw, I would say generally: quant investing isn't a scam, Jane | Street make most of their money from ETF AP...that isn't | complex, most of the high capacity strategies are quite simple | (index replication being one, stat arb being another). The more | complex HFT strategies tend to be (at their root) about | detecting when someone is moving the market: for example, XYZ | fund gets new money from investors, they deploy that into | stocks, and HFT is about detecting that and calculating whether | that is going to move the market (and XYZ fund now deploys | various execution algos to stop HFT funds detecting that they | have a huge order that will move the market). | | There is nothing wrong with this work and, contrary to what | people think, it is valuable. If you look at what it cost to | invest capital even ten years ago, it was expensive. As in: | $10-20 for a single trade. That has gone down to pennies, and | created trillions of value. Saying they are all scammers | because one guy is a scammer is not really a valid criticism. | matt_s wrote: | Payment for Order Flow was invented by Bernie Madoff. I believe | many of the technical and complex Wall St. "products" like that | are probably scams if it were laid out in laymans terms. Not | products that retail/brokerage account holders use like buying | a stock, ETF's or those "20XX Retirement Fund" - I'm talking | about the obtuse derivatives and other "products" that Wall | Street invents for themselves. | | Edit to add: PFOF is the mechanism that Robinhood (and others) | make money on - back of house Wall St. pays Robinhood for the | order flow. | Projectiboga wrote: | Hedge fund success comes from better tax treatment to very | delayed tac for the 'carry over' part. And they get better | trading and much higher margin. Yes skill and good ideas can | drive better profitz with lower tax. Scams go easier with lower | tax too. | paganel wrote: | > Alameda's CEO is Caroline Ellison | | Just search for that Ellison young lady online. She's partly | responsible for fraud that saw $10 billion of other people's | money go into the ether. How come that kid (she looks to be | under 30 years of age) was put in charge of a multi-billion | dollar company is way, way beyond me. | chasd00 wrote: | I take it her last name isn't _the_ Ellison right? If so, | that could be a hint. | selimthegrim wrote: | Megan Ellison produces movies | jeffreyrogers wrote: | Jane Street isn't a hedge fund so I'm not sure why you're | lumping in criticism of hedge funds with criticism of Jane | Street. | | I'm sure some hedge funds have been scams, and probably a | decent percentage are frauds in the sense that they have no | alpha even before fees (this isn't a crime though). There's not | much evidence that the fund you're referring to is a fraud. | There are published strategies now that if implemented in the | 90s and early 2000s would've earned returns of >50% after | transaction costs so their results seem attainable though | obviously exceptional. | danans wrote: | > The simple answer seems, because if you believe it to be | real, you can be this specific kind of Harvard + New York + "X" | kid - and seriously, they are all cut from the same jib, | superficially and inside their character, it tarnishes the | institution - and you can do this scam and pocket your change | and eat dim sum with 20 people on the weekends and have a | skinny girlfriend and buy a condo. You can do something pretty | meaningless with your life in exchange for the burn out. | | > This scam life lets 20 year olds not hear from their horrible | parents that burned them out and gave them no meaning. | Eventually they turn 30 and hope that a decade went by without | a crash, and then life decides for them to sell before the | ponzi collapses. Like you have a baby with your skinny | girlfriend and you buy the condo and great, you sell, and it | happens to be well timed! | | This is great screenplay material, like a "Millenial Fight-Club | on Wall-Street". You should keep writing! | dang wrote: | All: please don't fulminate*. Perhaps you don't owe embattled | billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're | participating in it. | | HN is a site for _curious_ conversation, so please wait to feel | some curiosity before you comment. | | * https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tr33house wrote: | thanks dang! Love this | iudqnolq wrote: | I think this merits your tradition of moderating less if YC's | interests are implicated. | dang wrote: | Do you mean because there's some connection between FTX and | YC? I certainly don't know of any. | | Moreover, even if there were, (a) the OP has been on HN's | front page for hours and is currently at #4, (b) this story | has been heavily discussed on HN, with several major threads | in the last few days alone, and (c) asking people not to | fulminate doesn't mean they can't make substantive critical | points--if anything it helps them do so. | iudqnolq wrote: | The connection would be that popular posts in the | discussion are criticizing Silicon Valley investor culture. | | > Moreover, even if there were ... | | Makes sense. You have a much better view of that than me. | _jal wrote: | Really only criticizing a particular corner of SV | investor culture. | | The old school, Sand Hill-style tradition of greed, | pettiness, backbiting and double-crosses continues | unchanged. | rootusrootus wrote: | > fulminate | | Hearby nominated as word of the day. Excellent. | Waterluvian wrote: | Diablo 2 taught me this. Along with my other favourite word: | Gargantuan. | JadeNB wrote: | Since we're talking language, I hope you won't mind my | mentioning it's 'hereby'--etymologically literally | 'here'+'by'; nothing to do with hearing. | rootusrootus wrote: | You are absolutely correct. I missed that on my proofread. | Kind of lame since it is such a short post. | | The older I get, the more I find myself making spelling | mistakes based on word pronunciation. Sometimes I use a | totally different word than what I was thinking, which | makes absolutely no sense unless you read it aloud. Then | you realize what happened. Hopefully it is not early onset | dementia. Though it would not be -that- early. | 7e wrote: | Sorry, no. If I can't protest here, where can I protest? Is | this supposed to be a safe space for billionaires? It's my | community, too. Don't censor me in the name of curiosities. | This isn't Iran. | dang wrote: | This is one of those times where it's helpful to know what | you're optimizing for. On HN we have the luxury of a single | principle that we're optimizing for: intellectual curiosity. | (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html plus | lots of past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange= | all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) | | This makes it easier to answer questions that would otherwise | feel like hard tradeoffs. In this case: should people be | shouting angrily in a protesty way in HN threads? No--but not | because protest is bad or unimportant. It's just incompatible | with intellectual curiosity, and since we're optimizing for | the latter, it has to win. | | When people are protesting or doing battle, they tend to | either repeat their most effective phrases (slogans, etc.) or | to spontaneously vent their strong emotions (name-calling, | etc.). But repetition and name-calling are clearly bad for | curiosity. I believe they're even different neurological | states: high indignation comes with a level of arousal that | rules out the relaxed playfulness that curious conversation | depends on. | | I hope it's clear that this isn't a judgment about protest or | indignation in general--those are as human as anything else | and when they're called for they're called for. It's just | relative to the particular mandate of this particular site. | We're trying to play one game and not another. | | Is that censorship? Well, that word has become so stretchy | that you can apply it however you feel. But I'd say no, for | the same reason that chess isn't crokinole. It isn't | censorship to say you don't get to whack your opponent's | bishop. | fantasyman1 wrote: | throw10920 wrote: | You've clearly and concisely stated what I've been | struggling to verbalize for several years now: that heated | emotional flamewars aren't discouraged/forbidden on HN | because emotion is bad (which is a strawman often brought | up), but because _HN is not the place for that_ , because | we optimize for intellectual curiosity. | | Just like programming languages - HN is neither the only | forum in existence, nor does it need to serve the needs of | every human in existence. | dang wrote: | (It was more concise before I finished editing) | Animats wrote: | Trading halt announcement at FTX.US.[1] Announcement says | withdrawals still up. But Twitter messages indicate withdrawals | are not working. | | FTX Japan shut down by order of Japan Financial Services | Agency.[2] | | FTX.intl processing some withdrawals, according to blockchain.[3] | A few lucky people got to exit. | | Way too much happening to mention here. Just use Google to search | "FTX" and limit search to 1 day. Margin calls all over crypto | land. JP Morgan says expect 50% drop across the board in crypto. | Around 10 AM PST, somebody just pulled a billion dollars out of | Tether. Word of the day: "deleveraging". | | [1] https://ftx.us/home | | [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/japan-cracks- | down-... | | [3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/crypto-exchange- | ft... | capableweb wrote: | > JP Morgan says expect 50% drop across the board in crypto. | Around 10 AM PST, somebody just pulled a billion dollars out of | Tether. | | Meanwhile, aggregate of the cryptocurrency market is up 5.38% | over the last day, Tether recovered landing on 0.9999 USD after | 4-5 hours of the drop hitting bottom at 0.9818 USD, which was | nowhere near previous all-time low Tether has hit previously. | | In other words, everyone screams "panic!" while the world | quietly moves on. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | FTX let people withdraw 100% of the time until they didn't. | ww520 wrote: | Because CPI looks better than expected. The entire market | goes up. | Animats wrote: | Tether will stay very close to 1.0 until, some day, they | can't make a redemption. The number to watch is their "market | cap". Note that Tether can make that go up by minting more | Tether, but when you see it go down, that usually means | someone cashed out. | | Stablecoins have only two stable points: 1 and 0. | ricardou wrote: | SBF tweeted[1] not too long ago that FTX.us was safe and was | 100% liquid. I suppose that wasn't the case? | | [1] | https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1590709195892195329?t=tQR... | Animats wrote: | Submit a withdrawal order and find out. | ww520 wrote: | He doesn't get it. The entire brand is tarnished. Nothing to | salvage. | tootie wrote: | If FTX were a real company that Tweet would be enough to be | put in handcuffs by the SEC. | umeshunni wrote: | Why doesn't that apply here? | lotsofpulp wrote: | SEC only enforces the law via civil means, so they do not | do handcuffs. Handcuffs would be FBI territory. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Ehhh, that's misleading. The SEC often files enforcement | actions directly with the DOJ and the SEC attorneys are | often dual-hatted as SAUSAs. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Interesting, I did not know that! | largepeepee wrote: | That's assuming SEC enforce their own rules, they are | often... Subjective and reactive. | WoahNoun wrote: | Because the law isn't computer code and there are always | grey lines. From Matt Levine: | | >But there are also a lot of places in securities law | where the rules are a little bit vague and you are | operating a little bit on the cutting edge and the best | practice is to pick up the phone and call the SEC staff | and say "hey what do you think about this?" Sometimes | this is fairly formalized: The SEC staff issues "no- | action letters" (you send them a letter saying "is it | okay if we do this," and they send back a letter saying | "if you do that, we probably won't sue you," which is | almost as good as them saying "yes") and "telephone | interpretations" (you call them up and ask "is it okay if | we do this," they say "sure seems fine" or "no that's | bad," and then they write down the question and answer so | other people with the same question don't have to ask it | again). These are places where the rules are unclear, or | they are clear but applying them as written would create | bad results, so the solution is to ask the SEC "is it | okay if we do this" and they just tell you. | | >Crypto people want rules! I don't mean that they want to | be regulated; I mean, specifically, that they want rules. | They want published, objectively specified, open and | transparent rules, so that everyone is on a level playing | field to do crypto stuff that complies with whatever the | rules are. I don't mean that everyone in crypto wants | that: Informal regulation favors the well-capitalized and | the incumbent, and if you're a big crypto firm on good | terms with the SEC (which might be an empty set) you | might prefer informality and opacity. I just mean that, | philosophically, crypto people should want open | transparent rules for permissionless innovation. That is | how the crypto system is designed to work, and they | should want the securities laws to work the same way. And | in fact Coinbase Global Inc., which is maybe the closest | thing the US crypto industry has to a big regulated | incumbent, has sent the SEC a petition asking it to make | rules for crypto securities. | | >Temperamentally I do not think the SEC likes this, and I | think that Gensler means what he says about "working | directly with entrepreneurs," and I think that this is a | reasoned choice. Look at how crypto often works in | practice. People write smart contracts with immutable | public code, and then other people hack them to steal | their money. That could be the SEC! If you are the SEC, | and crypto people say "please write clear transparent | rules so we know what is and isn't allowed," you might | hear that as "please write clear transparent rules so | that we can game them." This would be a reasonable lesson | for the SEC to take from (1) the history of crypto's | "code is law" philosophy ending in hacks, (2) the history | of crypto firms ignoring the US securities laws, and for | that matter (3) the history of traditional finance firms | trying to game the SEC's rules. Crypto is a wholly new | area for US securities regulation, and if you try to | write all the rules from scratch in one go you will get | things wrong. And then people will ruthlessly exploit | whatever you get wrong. | | https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/matt- | levines-mo... | blastonico wrote: | But he said he is sorry | rkagerer wrote: | _FTX extended loans to Alameda using money that customers had | deposited on the exchange for trading purposes_ | | If that's true, Bankman-Fried should go to jail. It wasn't FTX's | money to lend. | colesantiago wrote: | All these kids should be chucked in jail and seized of their | assets. I don't care how smart they are. | RadixDLT wrote: | all criminals think they are smart because they figure out a | way to scam people | nullc wrote: | and frequently failing to get that the reason that other | people aren't performing the scam is that they don't want to | rip people off and don't want to suffer the consequences-- | not because they couldn't figure out how. | SevenNation wrote: | > FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried told an investor this | week that Alameda owes FTX about $10 billion, the person said. | FTX extended loans to Alameda using money that customers had | deposited on the exchange for trading purposes, a decision that | Mr. Bankman-Fried described as a poor judgment call, according to | the person. | | This raises the question of who else Alameda owes. It's a sign of | the times that $10 billion doesn't seem like a lot today, but | it's way more than the Long Term Capital Management debacle: | | > LTCM was initially successful, with annualized returns (after | fees) of around 21% in its first year, 43% in its second year and | 41% in its third year. However, in 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in | less than four months due to a combination of high leverage and | exposure to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and 1998 Russian | financial crisis.[4] The master hedge fund, Long-Term Capital | Portfolio L.P., collapsed soon thereafter, leading to an | agreement on September 23, 1998, among 14 financial institutions | for a $3.65 billion recapitalization under the supervision of the | Federal Reserve.[1] The fund was liquidated and dissolved in | early 2000. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management | | When it comes to things like this, the connectivity of the money | seems at least as important as the quantity. | wbl wrote: | LTCM was a problem because everyone lent to them since they had | lots of government bonds to hock as collateral. So that 4.6 | billion loss due to impairment of the value of the Russian | loans was a huge problem. | | By contrast no bank would have touched Alameda with a ten foot | pole. Loan to a crypto fund? | SevenNation wrote: | > By contrast no bank would have touched Alameda with a ten | foot pole. | | Would you believe... a pension fund is involved with FTX? | | https://fortune.com/2022/11/10/canadian-teachers-could- | have-... | | I doubt the full extent of the connections to Alameda (or | FTX) have been disclosed. | Animats wrote: | This is embezzlement. Mr. Bankman-Fried should be arrested. Now. | bhaskara2 wrote: | Arrested by UN? Genuinely curious | Animats wrote: | Richmond, CA police department. Alameda Research HQ is at | 5327 Jacuzzi St Ste 1c, Richmond, CA 94804. Since they were | apparently the recipient of the money, and he's apparently | the principal beneficiary of all this, that's where to start. | Mr. Bankman-Fried may not physically be there, but they have | jurisdiction. | | Once there's an arrest warrant, getting away becomes much | more difficult. | dvt wrote: | You're conflating FTX.us (which is regulated) and operates | in the USA, and FTX global (where all this chicanery | happened) and is located in the Bahamas. | | With that said, the SEC is already also investigating any | potential links between the two entities. I don't think | they'd be stupid enough to cross those wires, but you never | know. | Animats wrote: | No, see Molly White's blog and the WSJ parent article. | What seems to have happened is that 1) FTX.intl loaned | money to Alameda Research in the US in exchange for some | token, 2) Alameda Research, which is a crypto trading | firm, speculated with that money and lost, 3) the | collateral from Alameda to FTX turned out to have little | value, and so 4) FTX.intl goes down. Bear in mind that | Mr. Bankman-Fried heads all three organizations. | | Whether FTX.us is also involved is not yet clear. But it | will be. The SEC and CFTC are descending, with hard | questions. | | Molly White: "This suggests to me that a) they are in a | really bad spot, and b) they want as few people sniffing | around in their books as possible." Right. That was | probably the real goal of a merger with Binance. In | bankruptcy, all the dirty laundry comes out. Being | acquired by Binance offered hope of keeping any criminal | activity hidden. That hope is now gone. | Emma_Goldman wrote: | Thanks - this is the most succinct summary of the | financial nexus leading to FTX's spiral into insolvency | that I've seen, and squares with my own understanding. | What we don't know is how the chain of cause and effect | played out over a timeline. How did Alameda lose $10bn? | How long has FTX been insolvent? Surely they have been | staring down the end of a barrel for a good while? | dvt wrote: | I fully understand the purported chain of events. But, | again: the US does not have jurisdiction over FTX. So why | would he "get arrested" in California for embezzlement? | He didn't break any US laws. The FTX/Alameda deal was | likely done via SAFT[1], which is both legal and popular. | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple- | agreement-future... | cmeacham98 wrote: | Does FTX international have any US investors? This would | be a theft of their funds too, right? | nemothekid wrote: | It does, but those investors were breaking FTX ToS by | using the site (you had to use a VPN to access it). | | I'm not sure if the SEC has standing for American | investors that pretended to not be American. | cmeacham98 wrote: | Sorry, I mean investors in the company itself, not crypto | traders. | dvt wrote: | Sequoia marked their $150M investment into FTX down to $0 | in a letter to LPs[1]. | | [1] https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/159052271865049907 | 3/photo... | TylerE wrote: | If years of following crypto has taught me anything, it's | the answer to "They couldn't possibly be that stupid, | could they?" is _always_ yes. | reso wrote: | SEC often asserts jurisdiction over anything where American | domiciled investors have suffered a large loss. That bar will | definitely be met here. | chollida1 wrote: | > SEC often asserts jurisdiction over anything where | American domiciled investors have suffered a large loss. | That bar will definitely be met here | | Thankfully for Sam, US investors are banned from FTX and | must use FTX.US which so far has not been linked to any of | this. | | So its going to be very hard to show US investor harm given | that they are all banned from using it by US law. | colinmhayes wrote: | The entire point of FTX is that Americans were barred from | using it. Now Americans certainly ignored that rule by | using vpn's, but I'm not sure that gives the sec | jurisdiction. The Americans using the exchange were | explicitly breaking the TOS | willcipriano wrote: | Is it legal to defraud people in other countries from the | US? I can't imagine that it is. | colinmhayes wrote: | Well he's in the bahamas, not the US. | criddell wrote: | SBF says US customers are not affected by this. | | > This was about FTX International. FTX US, the US based | exchange that accepts Americans, was not financially | impacted by this shitshow. | | > It's 100% liquid. Every user could fully withdraw (modulo | gas fees etc). | | https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1590709195892195329 | returnInfinity wrote: | We need some lawyer to confirm if he can be arrested or even | prosecuted in the US. Since its a business based out of | Bahamas. | mzs wrote: | He, not the company, his criminal actions victimized | Americans. | [deleted] | andirk wrote: | How ironic that crypto bros (like me) want a libertarian-yet- | democratic user-owned form of currency without government | intrusion, and then something like FTX not being overseen by the | government tanks all cryptos. | | When pretty much any company or industry gets to a certain | valuation size, it seems that oversight is an absolute | requirement lest things go south quickly, whether intentional or | negligent. Government oversight isn't a guarantee of fair play, | but it can lessen the risk. | rdtwo wrote: | So they stole 10 billion. It's always a good deal to invest other | people's money into risky bets then take all the profit. If you | lose you stick them with the losses. | | A lot of people should go to jail but probably won't. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | They only _should_ go to jail if the US had that actual | ideology. Remember, every decision made by the state is | political, these people not getting punished is everything | working exactly as intended | AustinDev wrote: | No idea why you're being downvoted. It is a fact that he | donated ~40M to politicians this election cycle.[1] If I had | to guess the donations were part of a hedge to avoid | accountability for this scam he ran. | | [1]https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest- | donor... | tspike wrote: | http://archive.today/nZNmw | [deleted] | leet_thow wrote: | Where does did all that money go? Is it part of a zero sum game | and in someone else's hands now, did it evaporate, or a | combination of the two? | scrivna wrote: | How do you lose $10B in a few years trading? That's truly | impressive. | | "We lose money on every trade but make it up on volume" | adrr wrote: | I'll bet they lost 90% of that money in the last 7 months. They | were probably doing fine during the bull market. | ketzo wrote: | Oversimplification, but: Alameda made a lot of money on paper, | kept mostly in incredibly volatile assets. Over the last week, | it turned out that those assets were worth very little. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-10 23:00 UTC)