Reply With Quote
Just moved ALL my bitcoin to cold wallet nigs.
The house of cards is gonna crash HARD
Ukraine
Just moved ALL my bitcoin to cold wallet nigs.
The house of cards is gonna crash HARD
lol don't forget the adrenochrome, hater
the Soros entry, a nice touch
You only lose if u sell. So zero
Lot of my coins were bought in 2020 when it was 20k anywaySure but I was always on for the long term. Minimum 10 years.
In 2030 well see where we areWhy? Im not greedy. Im good with a 10 year wait.
CheersLolZero. Im not cashing out
Cheers
Bitcoin down another 5% todayLolhater's gonna buy another car!
Still got my bitcoin in Cold Storage
HOLD!!!!!
You can tell yourself whatever you want. "Can't lose money if I don't sell.".
, when BitCoin was at $60,000, that was your ing money. Doesn't matter what you spent on it. That was yours.
You weren't playing with house money, you were playing with your own money. And you ed it up.
Im good. Invested most of my coin i. 2018 so still looking good.
HOLD!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/28/bloc...t-spreads.htmlCrypto firm BlockFi files for bankruptcy as FTX fallout spreads
Distressed crypto firm BlockFi has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey following the implosion of putative acquirer FTX.
In the filing, the company indicated that it had more than 100,000 creditors, with liabilities and assets ranging from $1 billion to $10 billion.
In the filing, the company listed an outstanding $275 million loan to FTX US, the American arm of Sam Bankman-Fried’s now-bankrupt empire.
A BlockFi subsidiary also moved for bankruptcy in Bermuda concurrently with the American filing.
...
FTX's bailout of BlockFi last summer had the press calling SBF "the JP Morgan of crypto."
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andre...845662208-jrf2
Good read tbh
Awesome takedown in this article, by contrast NYT and WSJ are treating SBF with kid gloves. It's even more remarkable that SBF is blabbing to everyone about it.
https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022...t-an-accident/Perhaps most perniciously, many outlets have described what happened to FTX as a “bank run” or a “run on deposits,” while Bankman-Fried has repeatedly insisted the company was simply overleveraged and disorganized. Both of these attempts to frame the fallout obfuscate the core issue: the misuse of customer funds.
Banks can be hit by “bank runs” because they are explicitly in the business of lending customer funds out to generate returns. They can experience a short-term cash crunch if everyone withdraws at the same time, without there being any long-term problem.
But FTX and other crypto exchanges are not banks. They do not (or should not) do bank-style lending, so even a very acute surge of withdrawals should not create a liquidity strain. FTX had specifically promised customers it would never lend out or otherwise use the crypto they entrusted to the exchange.
In reality, the funds were sent to the intimately linked trading firm Alameda Research, where they were, it seems, simply gambled away. This is, in the simplest terms, theft at a nearly unprecedented scale. While the total losses have yet to be quantified, up to one million customers could be impacted, according to a bankruptcy do ent.
In less than a month, reporting and the bankruptcy process have uncovered a laundry list of further decisions and practices that would cons ute financial fraud if FTX had been a U.S. regulated en y – even without any crypto-specific rules at play.
Banks can be hit by “bank runs” because they are explicitly in the business of lending customer funds out to generate returns. They can experience a short-term cash crunch if everyone withdraws at the same time, without there being any long-term problem.
This is false. Bank runs can effectively bankrupt a bank. This is why the FDIC was created, such that it would partially protect depositors if that happened.
The issue with FTX is that being unregulated, what ends up applying are their terms of service, which is an actual contract. I've no idea what they looked like, but they can conceivable shield them with the right language.
yeah, that part was a dumb take. still, we're looking at a Madoff scale caper here
I'm not so sure. Madoff was an easy target because he ran a ponzi scheme on regulated markets. I'm not privy to the contractual relationship between FTX and it's customers, but it'll likely boil down to that.
Ethically speaking, SBF is little different from Madoff in my mind, but you're right that the legal responsibilities are different; crypto isn't regulated the same way, so it'll likely come down more to the way the deals are written than what the law allows or prohibits.
I mean, you could still sue in civil court for a number of things, like misrepresentation, fraud, etc. But the criminal angle isn't super clear to me just yet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
