I just heard that a guy I knew committed suicide over the FTX implosion. He was a weath adviser with a bunch of his clients' money tied up there.
FTX fucked with peoples' livelihoods, and by extension their lives.
Edit: just to clarify, it was his decision to park his clients' money there. But FTX spent a lot of money courting retail investors with slick campaigns. A superbowl ad that implied people were stupid not to participate. Big Silicon Valley VC firms imbued SBF with the aura of a wunderkind who could do no wrong.
Only if it makes you feel better. There's no degree of punishment that can be done to this person whom you've never met that can bring the dead that you knew back to life. There are no refunds for spending our civilization lionizing the massive accumulation of wealth by financial manipulation. The danger is in the system, not the random narcissist promoted into a position of power within it; there is an endless supply of narcissists.
It's a trick played on the living by the people in charge of punishment. If it were for the living, the living would have a lot more of a say than they do, and some of the millions that are spent on the process of punishment would go to the bereaved. The bereaved are the pretense.
The average peasant cares not for this cold utilitarianism. They want to see him drawn and quartered. This is not something imposed by the ruling class.
You are correct that it's only if the poster feels better. You are wrong about the reasoning. Unfortunately, sentencing takes into account the harm done, but not causing so much harm that the person then takes their life.
I don't want to sound negative, really. It's a great tragedy.
But when you are a wealth advisor, one of your jobs is to inform your clients about the inherent risk of all forms of investments you deal with. As for cryptocurrencies, your duty is to tell your clients all their money can evaporate in a second and they won't be able to do anything about it. If they don't like that, they can use other forms of investments. In my country it's even regulated: the client needs to sign a statement they were informed about it and they accept this risk. So no reason to commit a suicide because it's not your problem in the slightest.
Yes, I assume this is what actually happened. But unless it was a borrowed money, again this is not a reason to commit suicide. You can always start from zero and have a more or less normal life. If it was borrowed money, well, that person shouldn't be a wealth advisor.
> telling your clients it was a great idea with little risk.
Or even worse: Telling your clients they are invested in something else with a completely different risk profile when they were actually exposed to this.
Sure, as long as your emotions are driven only by the contracts you sign.
People sign a waiver accepting the risk when they go whitewater rafting, but that doesn’t stop it from being a potentially life-altering traumatic experience for a rafting guide when a kid falls out and drowns under the raft.
Likewise, if you care about your client’s financial well-being as a wealth advisor, and you make a choice that destroys years of your client’s savings, retirement, etc. it would be understandable to feel distraught about that.
I don't disagree with you, but someone died. So, yes, maybe we should display a bit of empathy and acknowledge the significant impact this loss can have on someone's life, even if it wasn't a good decision, instead of just saying that they deserve it.
<< Are we supposed to be sorry for the wealth advisers after their wealthy clients loose their money into crypto investments?
That is not the point at all. The point is punishment, especially in a public case like this one, because it is important for society at large to see fraud is punished ( and right now looks a lot closer to Madoff scam type than not ). If the society at large does not see it, it may start questioning the validity of the system and simply decide to throw the table over. This is not a good thing ( unless for one reason or another a person wants to topple a given society ).
With that mind, public ostracism should be on everyone's mind. Fuck, we don't have a problem with a guy spouting perceived wrongthink ( edit: I do, but thats another story ) being banned from a conference, but the moment guy manages to effectively make people part with millions of dollars, he is a speaker?
<< What value do you generate pouring money into bitcoin minning or fliping "worthless" coins ?
The same question can be asked about HFT, mass purchase of real estate to artificially raise prices or hoarding aluminum for the same reason. I personally think you are asking the wrong question here.
<< If you are wealthy and you invest into crypto you deserve to loose it all!
I have no real skin in this game despite having some exposure to crypto. I find this attitude counter-productive.
Financial advisor without professional insurance? Why would anyone do that? Shouldn't they be the people who know how to use financial products and services to protect themselves?
If I ran a forum like this I’d invite SBF too… assuming he was stupid enough to come. This isn’t a privilege people are handing him, it’s an opportunity to gawk at the dumpster fire.
I guess it depends on what will be happening. Are they trying to give him enough rope to hang himself with? Or are they actually going to try to exonnerate him in some way?
(The usual "rope to hang yourself with" genre in journalism is the interview, where the journalist has significantly more control, compared to a public talk.)
The biggest question to me is why he isn't in prison or at least why there seems to be some possibility that he won't end up in handcuffs the moment he lands in the US.
The reason he might not end up in handcuffs when he lands in the US is that the Bahamian government currently has control of him and wants to try him first. They'll only let him come to the US if the U.S. guarantees he'll go back to the Bahamas for their charges. Or, if he uses zoom.
And as of now, they can only be handing him more rope. The media can help convict, but they cannot exonerate anyone. A prosecutor can just go forward and find 12 people who never saw this fairly niche event.
> They'll only let him come to the US if the U.S. guarantees he'll go back to the Bahamas for their charges.
The US has a law that says they will invade The Hague if the court there makes a decision they don't like. Are you sure there's such thing as "the US guarantees"?
The US has always abided by such agreements. The Hague requires the US to rescue soldiers held by an international body whose authority over US forces they publicly and perpetually deny the legitimacy of. It's not going back on your word when you keep reiterating you're not involved.
“However, this is an extreme interpretation of the act, and the act does not expressly authorize nor mention military action against the Netherlands (a close ally of the United States) or any ICC members, nor does it threaten an invasion of The Hague.”
> the law authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
It might not be expressly stated, but it's pretty clear. Sure, it's a super-extreme case - but it's there, explicitly saying "by all means necessary ...".
Once charges are filed there is a limited window of time to bring the case to trial, and you can only try a defendant once for a particular set of acts (in the U.S. at least; "double jeopardy").
FTX hasn't even finished collapsing. There will be plenty of time to prosecute him once all of the facts are known, assuming he hasn't been killed by one of his many victims before then.
I wonder if SBF was really dumb enough to think he could just get away with it, forever. It makes no sense, like stealing a car you always wanted on camera with a gps tracker in it that you know traces your exact location. You know you're caught no matter how fun the drive is at the moment.
He will be arrested, trial date will be set to few years later..case will drag on. He will get an year suspended sentence. He will be out on parole next day.
I will soak my socks in vinegar and eat them on Livestream if I am wrong or if he gets the book thrown at him
They were donating more or the same amount to Republican PACs.
> Some of the “Blockchain Eight,” as the Prospect termed them in March, have benefited from crypto largesse. Five of the eight members received campaign donations from FTX employees, ranging from $2,900 to $11,600. Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC), one of the signatories, received half a million dollars in support from a Super PAC created by FTX co-CEO Ryan Salame.
> More consequentially, Emmer was the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm for House Republicans, this year. The NRCC’s associated super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, received $2.75 million from FTX in the 2022 cycle; $2 million from Salame in late September, and $750,000 from the company’s political action committee.
> That money helped House Republicans win the majority in 2022. Though FTX has been portrayed as a Democratic firm, thanks to the high profile of former co-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, the company sprinkled around campaign donations fairly evenly, with a shade over 50 percent going directly to congressional Republicans and a shade under 50 percent to Democrats this cycle.
> In an email, the SEC declined to comment. Six of the eight congressmembers have yet to respond
There's been a concentrated effort by the Republican party to try to link the FTX collapse to the other party, even though the Republican party actually received more contributions from FTX during the general election.
Almost all of SBF's donations were during the primary, and he made almost no donations during the general election. This means his money might have helped influence who showed up on the November ballots he didn't spend anything to help one party win over the other.
In contrast, almost all of the FTX's GOP spending, and all of the FTX executive's donations to the GOP, were during the general election cycle, and specifically to the GOP House races. This means that the GOP owes it's current majority in the house directly to stolen money donated to it by FTX and FTX executives.
>Almost all of SBF's donations were during the primary, and he made almost no donations during the general election. This means his money might have helped influence who showed up on the November ballots he didn't spend anything to help one party win over the other.
That's not how it works. There is no rule that says that donations made during the primary season cannot be spent by the campaign after the primary.
Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them.
In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems, and explains why McCarthy is focusing his efforts on committee assignments rather than on going after FTX.
>Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them.
Money doesn't work that way. Money is fungible. There is nothing about contribution x that distinguishes it from contribution y once both are received, or prevents x from being used for the same purpose as y.
Further,
>In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems
The other way around. Money given later in an election cycle means there is less time to use it.
No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent.
So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.
>No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent.
Yes, in terms of individual contribution limits, and various other rules. However, not in the context that we have been discussing, which is using primary contributions in the general election. As the FEC explains <https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...>:
>As previously noted, should the candidate lose the primary election, contributions accepted for the general election must be refunded, redesignated or reattributed within 60 days and may not be used to repay primary election debt. Therefore, candidate committees should ensure they have enough cash on hand to make those refunds if needed.
>Candidates running in the general election, however, may spend unused primary contributions for general election expenses. The contributions would continue to apply toward the contributors’ limits for the primary. [My emphasis] In addition, the campaign of a candidate running in the general election may use general election contributions for primary election debts; the contributions would still count against the contributor’s general election limits.
As I said, this is why donating earlier is better than donating later, and why your claim that "The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them" is meaningless.
Of course you won't pay attention to the above, since you've already pontificated that
>So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.
Both these things— SBF donated more to Republicans than he did to Democrats and that he was the Democrats’ largest donor— can be simultaneously true. And that’s not exactly a great look for the GOP, since it means the plutocratic donor class is heavily on their side.
that's true, but his lieutenants were major donors to republican candidates -- Ryan Salame was advertised as a budding "republican megadonor" at events
You were only looking at the ~$570k assigned to specific candidates at the top. Look further down on the page: there's a $28000k donation to the Democratic "Protect our Future PAC", a $15000k donation to the Republican "American Dream Federal Action", ...
What you're missing is that the Protect our Future PAC only participated in the primary campaign cycle, meaning intra-party elections. POF did not participate in the general election in November.
If you look at donations based on when they were made, the GOP was the overwhelming recipient of FTX money for the general election in November, i.e., the election that mattered.
Protect our Future PAC is just one of several donations that were enormously larger than the $286k R / $283k D total direct candidate donations.
Meanwhile, just because a donation is received during the primary season doesn’t mean it can’t be spent during the general election period, when the candidate in question wins the primary.
And how many time do you need to realize we are discussing SBF and not whole FTX. FTX was a child-like run cult that did what it wanted and every single individual had their agenda. When we are discussing Salame and FTX, bring this point up.
The premise still stands that SBF was biggest personal contributor.
furthermore i would love to know why this demands a partisan lens when the whole of FTX was clearly co-mingling funds; the line between SBF's "personal" contributions and FTX's broader contributions as a network is likely governed more by campaign finance law than anything else
Perhaps they already spent the money on the 2022 mid-terms? If the money is dirty, should they be able to get those dirty dollars back from the places they spent it?
The money is not "dirty" in the typical definition of the word. "Dirty" money needs to be "laundered" so that you can appear to have a genuine justification of having it. That is, it's basically just a matter of whether it was declared as income to tax authorities.
The FTX money was all above board from that perspective. Taking money back from parties that FTX paid seems very unlikely.
That sounds more like a get-out-of-jail-for-hundreds-of-millions card. Though if this is the event that makes people realize that wealth inequality leads to all kinds of perversions of justice, perhaps that's a silver lining at least.
People have always known. But what are their options? Short of a revolution, people don’t really have the power or resources to make the necessary changes. Even after a revolution, you probably end up with the same issue: a pyramid-like power structure with similar levels of inequality, just different people in power.
EDIT: Another comment links to tweet by NYT & SBF both confirming he’s still “speaking” at the event, though who knows if he’ll actually be live and in person:
Why would they un-invite him though? After Pete Carrol made the call to pass on the 1-yd line , everybody wanted to interview him. Much more than they wanted to hear from Bellichick.
As people on fintwit have mentioned Madoff was in handcuffs less than 24 hours after his fraud was exposed. Bit this dude who literally described his business model as a Ponzi scheme?...
I can't help but feel a bit of cynicism over everything right now
I don't know, I think he is undoubtedly a newsworthy individual, and if it is true that he is not receiving a speaker's fee, I think it makes sense for them to keep him on the agenda.
I hope this is an operation to arrest the #$%#$% SBF and bring him to justice for the scorched earth he caused. What possible benefit could SBF bring to the NYT event--how to blow up millions of people's finances while you rob the company blind? Well SBF's financial insights _would_ go well with a Yellen's "transitory inflation" disaster. Just sayin.
Not “millions”, as FTX barely had a million customers. And most of the money belonged to entities like Sequoia Capital and SoftBank and not actual people.
Also, given it was a crypto exchange, ie a ponzi scheme by design, I’m not sure if there’s any point in blaming the owners for making it a bit more scammy.
What are the chances he gets arrested immediately when leaving the airport? Or does the US not have any jurisdiction since FTX was located in the Bahamas? Even FTX US?
Not that unlikely, but as far as I know he isn't actually charged with anything yet? But, even if I am correct on that, he almost undoubtedly will be at some point. You can lose a lot of poor and maybe middle class people's money and walk free, but FTX also lost some rich people's money. You don't lose that many rich people's money without getting charged, unless you're absolutely saintly in your behavior, which SBF certainly was not.
If I were the interviewer I would treat him very gently... for the first 30 minutes or so. Hand him his own rope by fawning over his every word as you extract every confession possible.
Then when it's clear he's said everything you're going to get out of him, publicly embarrass him with the dress down on all his double speak.
We should make this about Janet Yellen instead. Why does the Secretary of the Treasury, who is tasked with setting monetary policy, voluntarily share the stage with a crypto-shyster?
As a top-of-her-field academic and policymaker, I can’t think of many who are better suited than Yellen to directly engage SBF on the substance of what’s happened
It doesn’t sound like too many layers had to be peeled away to see that it was all a scam. When you’re dealing with donations that large, you need to get to the root of it. They wound have noticed they didn’t have any real accounting or auditing and knew they’d have to reject the money.
My first instinct upon reading this headline was, which of the two is the bigger crook? Sure, SBF stole a lot of money, but Yellen is a dishonest political hack whose inflationary policies caused a lot more harm to the economy.
FTX fucked with peoples' livelihoods, and by extension their lives.
Edit: just to clarify, it was his decision to park his clients' money there. But FTX spent a lot of money courting retail investors with slick campaigns. A superbowl ad that implied people were stupid not to participate. Big Silicon Valley VC firms imbued SBF with the aura of a wunderkind who could do no wrong.