cryptoanon

Brex

Key line here is that Sam transferred $4B from FTX to Alameda, unbeknownst to FTX executives, to bail them out.

Alameda messed up in the same way that three arrows did. That’s not necessarily Sam’s fault, because he did not run Alameda at the time. However, it seems like you build them out by providing them with a ton of FTT collateral so he’s pretty much complicit.

I never made any comments about FTX.

Ego wars. Sam made a joke about CZ getting arrested on US soil.

The wide range of Binance’s criminal behavior didn’t clue you in on his sharkiness prior to this?

I have no interest in Sam, Sam coins, or the cult of Sam.

What if I saw military helicopters flying above and told others “war has broken out!” I see how you can say that’s not misinformation, but wild speculation. For me, it’s both.

They gladly and unapologetically have posted fake material for engagement https://twitter.com/otteroooo/status/1548010114136715264

I'm just saying, the idea that people are not entitled to come to conclusions based on partial information is not valid.

It’s possible to get scammed by a person that’s telling you that something is a scam. That’s an affinity scam.

I’m not trying to tell you what to think. I’m saying that there are material flaws in the analysis.

I do not have the burden of proof.

You’re right. I edited that in later but I’m going to take it out. He’s made some pretty damning accusations based on circumstantial evidence.

I’m not saying alameda is not insolvent. Im saying that the burden of proof is on the author to prove that they are insolvent.

Sure you can say this is a stress test - I’m just saying it’s misinformation. I am annoyed by people who spread misinformation for clout. Applies to both the bullish credit and the bearish crowd.

What if the loans are minted DAI? How is that a Ponzi?

3AC had been packed to the gills with uncollateralized loans. Since then, most lenders have recalled loans and cleaned up their toxic balance sheet.

I mean this guy as well as a bunch of people on Twitter who have been clout chasing ambulance chasers, running over the truth to chase a story.

The formula is this: 1. Create an helpful explainer thread to explain some crisis (ex-post)

2. Start to make vague predictions about relatively easy to predict things (like that Celsius is going to go down, a couple days before it technically goes down).

3. Refer your readers back to your foresightedness

4. Get extremely excited as you receive DMs from people to check out x or y.

5. Lock your eyes on a juicy new company and start to make unfounded claims about said company, referring to a sole rando as a “source” (eg Nexo is insolvent!)

6. Create an expose on your new target, run shoddy analysis based on no actual data, and throw it into a larger conspiratorial framework that starts to implicate other actors.

7. All the while, build a captive audience who doesn’t know the better and eventually use that audience to run ads or to pay for your newsletter.

8. They can run this affinity scam because 1. What they say is not falsifiable, 2. you have an infinite timescale for which to be correct about any one company going bankrupt, 3. there are people out there who are earnestly trying to learn about the market and don’t know who to turn to, and 4. if you’re wrong, you’re not accountable to your actions because there was never any actual money on the line.

There are serious issues in the industry, do not get me wrong. It’s kind of messed up that people who have no connections have to look into the void and decide whether they’re going to trust an internet rando or nobody at all. Disclosures need to be better. But the people writing these sensationalist pieces are part of the problem and not the solution.

How is that related to this article?

Exactly. It seems like the author has very limited insight in the space. It makes you curious how they could come to such a headline/conclusion, when they spend the entire article, talking about the assets instead of the liabilities!

I really do not like this article and the discourse here for several reasons:

1. The entire Coindesk article lacks meaningful substance. For instance, we have zero idea about what those $7.4 billion of “loans” are. It’s really irresponsible to say that they’re insolvent. If you believe, so, you are applying no more rigor to your understanding of the space than the idiots who say HODL YOLO HFSP. If the liabilities are collateralized by assets on their balance sheet, then the financial risk is not to Alameda but the lender!

2. The entire article paints a dire picture based off of their appraisal of the assets. Again, nobody has any idea of what the liabilities truly are, so to speculate that Alameda is insolvent is making an unfounded leap. But the author of the article tries to lead us to believe that it’s an OK leap to make, because their assets are trash! Wrong. It’s lazy, it’s pandering to a certain crowd, and it’s dishonest.

3. Before reflecting on their extremely, extremely short handed analysis, they take their unfounded conclusions further and spin it through a prior framework that they made for Celsius, which is a totally different type of company with a totally different set of liabilities. Alameda does not lend money to retail. The author pulls a sleight of hand by taking one misleading statement, and transforming it before the reader can apply any skepticism to the original misleading statement.

4. Recently there have cropped up a set of anonymous people (otteroooo on Twitter, this guy) who purport themselves as insiders only to reveal themselves to be complete completely ignorant about the topic at hand. A lot of unsavory people have recognized there’s a cottage industry in endlessly pounding the table saying that the world is falling and that everything is a scam based off of extremely little public information and no access to any private sources. They are ambulance chasers.

5. We have a large contingent of people who just read the headline here, and assume, scam! And apply the pre-existing biases to the entire thing, with nothing insightful to add.

*edited some dictation/autocorrect errors

Wow. I was wondering why I had such a hard time reading this. Now that you say it, you’re spot on – it’s the text equivalent of stop and go traffic.

Go to a psychiatrist and try ask for ketamine. It has the same effect of detaching you from trauma. It’s like putting your brain through a car wash.

How do we know that the multiple sessions of general anesthetic isn’t doing the legwork against the depression? I read the article and there were very scant details.

Why are you so cruel?

A lot of people seem to think that this was an inside job. I’m getting tired of this. So much money has been siphoned away from the market it’s not funny anymore.

A third of a life at 19 is barely a life at all

Short guys have it extremely tough. No marginalized group would ever recognize the struggle of short guys. It’s a tough life, extremely tough to match, tough to get people to pay attention professionally (at first), and just tough to not make people subconsciously infantilize you (“Aw cute!” “Impressive!”).

I think the fact that most people would not seriously consider short guys as a marginalized group is proof itself of how marginalized it is. It’s hard not to be resigned to it. The biological marker that associates height with (physical and mental) fitness is just too strong.

At the end of the day, we are all blessed to have an opportunity on this mortal realm and we all have to move on and live life, but sometimes I wish that more people had the same empathy that you’re showing.

The blowup of Terra/Luna may be the single greatest market tragedy in South Korea since the IMF intervention. Do Kwon ruined his own people and seems to show very little remorse for it.

Some may view him as a scapegoat - I do not. Credit is to where credit is due. The man who patted himself on the back, boasting about his wealth and accomplishment, should also take credit for what happened subsequently.

Accountability ought to be a basic tenet of the crypto ecosystem and yet so many people seem to come here to escape it.

Do you have ADHD? That's the typical reaction to stimulants.

This is a disingenuous argument because you pretend like gold has no downsides. The major, and very real downside of gold is that it's costly to store. The risk of confiscation is high unless you protect yourself with weapons. (And, in that case, doesn't that make weapons more valuable?)