Bankman-Fried personally seems to own, indirectly, about $472M (paid over $600M, so that was a loss) worth of Robinhood Financial.[1]
Other documents provided to investors say that FTX US, Bankman-Fried’s onshore exchange, held $115mn of cash. Of that sum, $48mn was listed as corresponding to customer US dollar balances of $60mn.
So there might be enough cash to pay off customer cash balances. Those belong to the customer, not FTX, and were supposed to be in a separate account.
Here's the bankruptcy filing.[2] Case #22-11066.
Money appears to be flowing out of FTX to "privileged accounts" and anonymous wallets.[3]
This is now well past simple speculating with customer funds and into major criminal enterprise territory.
Creditor litigation is being started up.[4] Of course.
-- a 30 year old personally has $600MM to invest in a single company? - his startup was founded in 2019 - that was crazy comp structure he had? - he comes from money? - or..? --
How the fuck did all these high-profile investors miss this.
NEA, IVP, Iconiq Capital, Third Point Ventures, Tiger Global, Altimeter Capital Management, Lux Capital, Mayfield, Insight Partners, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Ribbit Capital, Temasek Holdings, BlackRock and Thoma Bravo.
These aren't schleps in this list. Blackrock, Sequoia, Tiger, Lightspeed, the fucking NEA. Jesus. Did no one do _any_ due diligence?? Did they just trust the auditor Armanino and Prager Metis (who??)[1]??
At least Enron had Arthur Andersen and some cover of respectability in the audit space at the time.
8 months ago I commented "Anyone else oddly skeptical of FTX? They seemingly came out of no where with ungodly amounts of money, and began slapping their name on anything and everything."
Just one glance at the founder's pics online, makes all my gut alarms go off like crazy. Sometimes, I wonder how people got easily scammed like this by these people but I just chalk to them not being hyper aware of these subconscious clues or worse not acting on their gut reaction when it fires incessantly.
I told my dad over a year ago that FTX buying stadium naming rights for a bunch of sports leagues (including one of our hometown teams) was like if there had been an Enron Stadium in 2000.
There should be more discussion about how to store value without counterparty risk.
Most people think it is as easy as ordering a hardware wallet, following the process the wallet software suggests and - hurray! - your keys, your coins!
But it is not that easy. You also have to cut the wallet manufacturer and the software developer out of the loop.
I have yet to see a description on how to safely create a wallet that really does away with counterparty risk.
The way I understand Bitcoins signatures, there could be a way. But it would involve to somehow put your secret key into multiple air gapped, RFC-6979 compliant hardware wallets. And then create addresses and sign transactions with those hardware wallets without ever connecting them to a computer. And compare the addresses and signatures between these wallets to make sure they match. Because otherwise, the wallets could taint the output in a way that signals data back to the manufacturer.
I don't even know if there are fully operational air gapped hardware wallets on the market.
> There should be more discussion about how to store value without counterparty risk.
> Most people think it is as easy as ordering a hardware wallet, following the process the wallet software suggests and - hurray! - your keys, your coins!
What exactly is the threat model here?
To my knowledge, there's been no general compromise of truly air-gapped hardware that could only exfiltrate data by a back channel in an otherwise valid cryptographic transaction. This scenario seems to therefore imagine a targeted attack.
However, if you're storing enough value to be the subject of a targeted attack, then it would also be unwise to have the assets so concentrated in cryptocurrencies. Diversification reduces overall risk.
With cryptocurrencies as just one asset among many, the "storage" answer becomes obvious: use a law firm or financial institution that holds enough liability insurance to cover any losses arising from bad storage practices. Use the legal system, rather than evade it.
>But it is not that easy. You also have to cut the wallet manufacturer and the software developer out of the loop.
Better get computer literate, and better yet, cryptographically savvy. Oh, but wait, all those microprocessors have closed blob firmware, closed source designs, and you have no idea what type of higher level industry collusion (be it with regulators you disagree with, or just within themselves to ensure they maintain a niche) they have going on.
Guess you'll have to bootstrap your own hardware/firmware/software stack, and maintain it yourself.
...No, there is no /s. I'm dead serious. That's what you're proposing shakes out like.
Look, it ain't an unfamiliar sight to me. I've also seen it exploited in the other direction (industry doing everything they can to maintain their relevance to the detriment of everyone else) too many times.
What I guess I'm trying to say is: no one (in power, or to an extent abstractly) actually wants to empower people to be able to financially self-service.
It's about 200 lines of Python code to implement a Bitcoin HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet using just the standard library and old-style addresses.
This will give you a 256-bit integer as the private key. You can process this further with whatever additional method you want (Shamir Secret Sharing, ...).
Obviously not for everybody, but the underlying cryptography is pretty simple.
You cannot 'store value' without some counterparty risk because ultimately the value you store, has to be 'valuable' to some other person, likely many of them.
Money/Credit is a social construct; not objectively separate from the system in which it's 'useful'.
If you really want to - you can store Gold in safe. How hard is that? It's relatively easy. A bit annoying, but plausible.
Of course, you have to be sure that others will value Gold in the future. There's no formal 'counterparty' in the specific sense you're alluding to (if the gold is under your bed) but the inherent value of the stored good depends on a 'counterparty'.
You can buy Real Estate, a bit of a pain and dependent on a bunch of laws, but that's an option.
Or any other thing.
All of it ultimately depends on 'counter party' and 'contextual' issues.
I think that this is a serious problem among the 'Self Sovereign' thinking - in pragmatic reality - there is no such thing. At least not in the sense of things like 'currency' or even 'stores of value' to be deployed commercially.
(You can 'store' things like fuel for your own future consumption, but that's a different story)
as always, the biggest risk to your cryptocurrency at an exchange is ... the exchange actively or passively stealing all your money. this has been the case for the entire history of cryptocurrency exchanges.
> Most people think it is as easy as ordering a hardware wallet ...
I also don't understand why some folks are so attracted to a custom hardware device. It's straight-forward to grab Bitcoin software from Github, put it on an air-gapped laptop via USB stick, run it and generate a new pubkey, write down recovery info and bury in backyard, send btc to that pubkey, and done.
Any guide on how to do that would expose you to counterparty risk from the guide maker, so I'm afraid you have to figure it out on your own.
But code for making paper wallets is easy enough to validate or write on your own. Just bring your own air gapped computer, bought from a random supplier at least 20 miles away from your home.
10% liquid doesn't necessarily concern me when considering a bank. But, they have many more routes to liquidity than FTX (Liam from the fed, loans from other banks, etc.). And even still, 10% isn't legal for a bank if their liquid assets are too volatile.
450 mil was in SBFs Robinhood investment, and FTX clearly didn't have any other avenues towards liquidity. 10% without an out was a predictably bad idea
Even if I take the most charitable view, ie. that everything they did was above board etc, there’s still a lesson here about diversification -
a startup (ie. a private company which represents the majority of the founders assets) is already a massively concentrated, ie. not diversified, financial position -
no need to compound it by making a myriad bets (through Alameda or otherwise) in in other tokens/companies in the same market, which are ultimately incredibly correlated assets.
If there was no fraud, that will ultimately be the explanation for their downfall.
Is this normal? I would assume that no bank has 100% liquid assets against liabilities (same as stuffing all your money under your mattress.) So what is the "right" ratio for an exchange? Close to 100% since you are not supposed to invest an exchange's money?
>Is this normal? I would assume that no bank has 100% liquid assets against liabilities
Banks are required by law to have regulatory capital[1] and reserves[2] in order to stay liquid and solvent.
Longer explanation: "The reserves only provide liquidity to cover withdrawals within the normal pattern. Banks and the central bank expect that in normal circumstances only a proportion of deposits will be withdrawn at the same time, and that the reserves will be sufficient to meet the demand for cash. However, banks routinely find themselves in a shortfall situation or may experience an unexpected bank run, when depositors wish to withdraw more funds than the reserves held by the bank. In that event, the bank experiencing the liquidity shortfall may routinely borrow short-term funds in the interbank lending market from banks with a surplus. In exceptional situations, the central bank may provide funds to cover the short-term shortfall as lender of last resort. When the bank liquidity problem exceeds the central bank’s lender of last resort resources, as happened during the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, the government may try to restore confidence in the banking system, for example, by providing government guarantees[2]."
If commercial bank is in trouble other commercial banks will try to help but if they can not help, central bank will try to help and if that is not possible government will step in.
All in all, banking industry is tightly regulated and somewhat safe especially after 2007 fiasco.
In the case of FTX, Binance said they would step in but they gave up. If FTX is profitable they can gradually loan money from private sector(banks, investment funds etc.) then start to repay their liabilities and eventually return loans.
Yes, exactly. The liabilities number includes all on-exchange customer deposits and funds, which it should be theoretically possible to redeem in full at any time.
Fractional reserves exist in finance and are held in various assets that can be hedged and also redeemed. Based on the liabilities that FTX revealed like funding Alameda for their investments in un-hegable bets like “Donald Trump losing” is not normal where they could never get those funds back if there was a bank run.
People are looking at this thing too closely. When taking the 30000ft wide view then something like this is not extraordinary , and there I say it, not even bad.
Fedex was famously down to their last 5,000$ dollars and were facing bankruptcy, and the founder quite literally went to Vegas to play blackjack and won 27,000$ to save the company.
Companies and entrepreneurs are supposed to take on risk, that's why bankruptcy laws and LLCs exists in the first place. To give entrepreneurs some peace of mind that if the risk doesn't pay off they only lose what they put in.
The world and the US was growing much faster in the 1970s and 1980s when these sort of things happened daily. Not all donuts come out with a hole.
If for every Ponzis we get a Standard Oil then it's worth it.
If for every Enron we get a Microsoft then it's worth it.
If for every FTX we get a Moderna then it's for sure worth it.
And maybe all those positive examples were just inches away from being touted as negative examples, quite like Fedex was.
> and a negative $8bn entry described as “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.
> Bankman-Fried told the Financial Times the $8bn related to funds “accidentally” extended to his trading firm, Alameda, but declined to comment further.
Oh look, $8bn just appeared on the balance sheet. Where did they come from? Doesn't matter, surely they are legit. I mean, I have so many billions, $8bn is pocket change. Lets use the $8bn for trading immediately.
This was always a Ponzi scheme, and SBF was incredibly open about it being a Ponzi scheme, and yet people still tried to beat out the Ponzi scheme. Here's SBF back in April (just a small excerpt, the full section is far more damning):
> SBF: So, you know, X tokens [are] being given out each day, all these like sophisticated firms are like, huh, that's interesting. Like if the total amount of money in the box is a hundred million dollars, then it's going to yield $16 million this year in X tokens being given out for it. That's a 16% return. That's pretty good. We'll put a little bit more in, right? And maybe that happens until there are $200 million dollars in the box. So, you know, sophisticated traders and/or people on Crypto Twitter, or other sort of similar parties, go and put $200 million in the box collectively and they start getting these X tokens for it.
> And now all of a sudden everyone's like, wow, people just decide to put $200 million in the box. This is a pretty cool box, right? Like this is a valuable box as demonstrated by all the money that people have apparently decided should be in the box. And who are we to say that they're wrong about that? Like, you know, this is, I mean boxes can be great. Look, I love boxes as much as the next guy. And so what happens now? All of a sudden people are kind of recalibrating like, well, $20 million, that's it? Like that market cap for this box? And it's been like 48 hours and it already is $200 million, including from like sophisticated players in it. They're like, come on, that's too low. And they look at these ratios, TVL, total value locked in the box, you know, as a ratio to market cap of the box’s token.
> ...
> Matt Levine: I think of myself as like a fairly cynical person. And that was so much more cynical than how I would've described farming. You're just like, well, I'm in the Ponzi business and it's pretty good.
I think the consequentialist underpinnings of EA are part of the story. Consequentialism revisits our ideas of right and wrong by looking at outcomes. Any reasonable person can look at a law and conclude that there might be a reason to break it under certain circumstances. Certainly, one might argue, financial regulations are arbitrary and that the only way to succeed in your larger goal is to break the rules. EA specializes in this type of reframing, especially when the imagined benefits hugely outweigh the immediate costs, and in this case it's easy to see how self-serving it can be.
"Currently, all U.S. banks are subject to a balance sheet leverage ratio, which requires them to maintain a ratio of tier 1 capital to balance sheet assets at a minimum level of 4%. In order to be well-capitalized, banks must achieve a 5% minimum leverage ratio"
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
Notes:
Bankman-Fried personally seems to own, indirectly, about $472M (paid over $600M, so that was a loss) worth of Robinhood Financial.[1]
Other documents provided to investors say that FTX US, Bankman-Fried’s onshore exchange, held $115mn of cash. Of that sum, $48mn was listed as corresponding to customer US dollar balances of $60mn.
So there might be enough cash to pay off customer cash balances. Those belong to the customer, not FTX, and were supposed to be in a separate account.
Here's the bankruptcy filing.[2] Case #22-11066.
Money appears to be flowing out of FTX to "privileged accounts" and anonymous wallets.[3]
This is now well past simple speculating with customer funds and into major criminal enterprise territory.
Creditor litigation is being started up.[4] Of course.
[1] https://archive.ph/o/hfvzw/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edga...
[2] https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/33/188448/042120640...
[3] https://btc-pulse.com/2022/11/12/ftx-withdrawals-resume-but-...
[4] https://scott-scott.com/sec-investigation/ftx-trading-ltd/
[+] [-] pigtailgirl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celestialcheese|3 years ago|reply
NEA, IVP, Iconiq Capital, Third Point Ventures, Tiger Global, Altimeter Capital Management, Lux Capital, Mayfield, Insight Partners, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Ribbit Capital, Temasek Holdings, BlackRock and Thoma Bravo.
These aren't schleps in this list. Blackrock, Sequoia, Tiger, Lightspeed, the fucking NEA. Jesus. Did no one do _any_ due diligence?? Did they just trust the auditor Armanino and Prager Metis (who??)[1]??
At least Enron had Arthur Andersen and some cover of respectability in the audit space at the time.
Irrational exuberance is really something.
1- https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/11/meet-the-metave...
[+] [-] oldstrangers|3 years ago|reply
Glad my BS detector works I guess.
[+] [-] FerociousTimes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbHXBY1D|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JonathanBeuys|3 years ago|reply
Most people think it is as easy as ordering a hardware wallet, following the process the wallet software suggests and - hurray! - your keys, your coins!
But it is not that easy. You also have to cut the wallet manufacturer and the software developer out of the loop.
I have yet to see a description on how to safely create a wallet that really does away with counterparty risk.
The way I understand Bitcoins signatures, there could be a way. But it would involve to somehow put your secret key into multiple air gapped, RFC-6979 compliant hardware wallets. And then create addresses and sign transactions with those hardware wallets without ever connecting them to a computer. And compare the addresses and signatures between these wallets to make sure they match. Because otherwise, the wallets could taint the output in a way that signals data back to the manufacturer.
I don't even know if there are fully operational air gapped hardware wallets on the market.
[+] [-] Majromax|3 years ago|reply
> Most people think it is as easy as ordering a hardware wallet, following the process the wallet software suggests and - hurray! - your keys, your coins!
What exactly is the threat model here?
To my knowledge, there's been no general compromise of truly air-gapped hardware that could only exfiltrate data by a back channel in an otherwise valid cryptographic transaction. This scenario seems to therefore imagine a targeted attack.
However, if you're storing enough value to be the subject of a targeted attack, then it would also be unwise to have the assets so concentrated in cryptocurrencies. Diversification reduces overall risk.
With cryptocurrencies as just one asset among many, the "storage" answer becomes obvious: use a law firm or financial institution that holds enough liability insurance to cover any losses arising from bad storage practices. Use the legal system, rather than evade it.
[+] [-] smeej|3 years ago|reply
If you have even just a 2-of-3 keyset with one Ledger, one Trezor, and a Coldcard, none of those companies can screw you by itself.
If you go up to 3-of-5, it's even more robust.
You can set it up yourself using FOSS like Electrum.
Or you can hire somebody like Casa[0] to get it all set up and set up the infrastructure to verify Casa App is doing exactly what it says it's doing.
[0] https://keys.casa
ETA: There are lots of airgapped wallets. Coldcard, Keystone, and Passport all work airgapped.
[+] [-] partloyaldemon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salawat|3 years ago|reply
Better get computer literate, and better yet, cryptographically savvy. Oh, but wait, all those microprocessors have closed blob firmware, closed source designs, and you have no idea what type of higher level industry collusion (be it with regulators you disagree with, or just within themselves to ensure they maintain a niche) they have going on.
Guess you'll have to bootstrap your own hardware/firmware/software stack, and maintain it yourself.
...No, there is no /s. I'm dead serious. That's what you're proposing shakes out like.
Look, it ain't an unfamiliar sight to me. I've also seen it exploited in the other direction (industry doing everything they can to maintain their relevance to the detriment of everyone else) too many times.
What I guess I'm trying to say is: no one (in power, or to an extent abstractly) actually wants to empower people to be able to financially self-service.
[+] [-] 323|3 years ago|reply
This will give you a 256-bit integer as the private key. You can process this further with whatever additional method you want (Shamir Secret Sharing, ...).
Obviously not for everybody, but the underlying cryptography is pretty simple.
[+] [-] jasmer|3 years ago|reply
Money/Credit is a social construct; not objectively separate from the system in which it's 'useful'.
If you really want to - you can store Gold in safe. How hard is that? It's relatively easy. A bit annoying, but plausible.
Of course, you have to be sure that others will value Gold in the future. There's no formal 'counterparty' in the specific sense you're alluding to (if the gold is under your bed) but the inherent value of the stored good depends on a 'counterparty'.
You can buy Real Estate, a bit of a pain and dependent on a bunch of laws, but that's an option.
Or any other thing.
All of it ultimately depends on 'counter party' and 'contextual' issues.
I think that this is a serious problem among the 'Self Sovereign' thinking - in pragmatic reality - there is no such thing. At least not in the sense of things like 'currency' or even 'stores of value' to be deployed commercially.
(You can 'store' things like fuel for your own future consumption, but that's a different story)
[+] [-] zen21|3 years ago|reply
This aims to address these issues. Verifiable hardware and open source OS and wallet.
[+] [-] bananapub|3 years ago|reply
as always, the biggest risk to your cryptocurrency at an exchange is ... the exchange actively or passively stealing all your money. this has been the case for the entire history of cryptocurrency exchanges.
[+] [-] landemva|3 years ago|reply
I also don't understand why some folks are so attracted to a custom hardware device. It's straight-forward to grab Bitcoin software from Github, put it on an air-gapped laptop via USB stick, run it and generate a new pubkey, write down recovery info and bury in backyard, send btc to that pubkey, and done.
https://github.com/bitcoin
[+] [-] jmcqk6|3 years ago|reply
Due to the social nature of money, this is impossible.
[+] [-] wongarsu|3 years ago|reply
But code for making paper wallets is easy enough to validate or write on your own. Just bring your own air gapped computer, bought from a random supplier at least 20 miles away from your home.
[+] [-] idlewords|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielvf|3 years ago|reply
In addition you get ways to handle lost keys, ownership changes, and the ability to require multiple people to sign off on any action.
[+] [-] rasz|3 years ago|reply
What value? All crypto is people trading checksum numbers.
[+] [-] grey-area|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mind-blight|3 years ago|reply
450 mil was in SBFs Robinhood investment, and FTX clearly didn't have any other avenues towards liquidity. 10% without an out was a predictably bad idea
[+] [-] sillysaurusx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nfcampos|3 years ago|reply
a startup (ie. a private company which represents the majority of the founders assets) is already a massively concentrated, ie. not diversified, financial position -
no need to compound it by making a myriad bets (through Alameda or otherwise) in in other tokens/companies in the same market, which are ultimately incredibly correlated assets.
If there was no fraud, that will ultimately be the explanation for their downfall.
[+] [-] guardiangod|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrkramer|3 years ago|reply
Banks are required by law to have regulatory capital[1] and reserves[2] in order to stay liquid and solvent.
Longer explanation: "The reserves only provide liquidity to cover withdrawals within the normal pattern. Banks and the central bank expect that in normal circumstances only a proportion of deposits will be withdrawn at the same time, and that the reserves will be sufficient to meet the demand for cash. However, banks routinely find themselves in a shortfall situation or may experience an unexpected bank run, when depositors wish to withdraw more funds than the reserves held by the bank. In that event, the bank experiencing the liquidity shortfall may routinely borrow short-term funds in the interbank lending market from banks with a surplus. In exceptional situations, the central bank may provide funds to cover the short-term shortfall as lender of last resort. When the bank liquidity problem exceeds the central bank’s lender of last resort resources, as happened during the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, the government may try to restore confidence in the banking system, for example, by providing government guarantees[2]."
If commercial bank is in trouble other commercial banks will try to help but if they can not help, central bank will try to help and if that is not possible government will step in.
All in all, banking industry is tightly regulated and somewhat safe especially after 2007 fiasco.
In the case of FTX, Binance said they would step in but they gave up. If FTX is profitable they can gradually loan money from private sector(banks, investment funds etc.) then start to repay their liabilities and eventually return loans.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
[+] [-] conorcleary|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VagueMag|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ottumm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonstopdev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mertd|3 years ago|reply
Aren't tokens supposed to be "liquid" or is this a different way of saying the tokens are worthless?
[+] [-] irsagent|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bubble_Pop_22|3 years ago|reply
Fedex was famously down to their last 5,000$ dollars and were facing bankruptcy, and the founder quite literally went to Vegas to play blackjack and won 27,000$ to save the company.
Companies and entrepreneurs are supposed to take on risk, that's why bankruptcy laws and LLCs exists in the first place. To give entrepreneurs some peace of mind that if the risk doesn't pay off they only lose what they put in.
The world and the US was growing much faster in the 1970s and 1980s when these sort of things happened daily. Not all donuts come out with a hole.
If for every Ponzis we get a Standard Oil then it's worth it.
If for every Enron we get a Microsoft then it's worth it.
If for every FTX we get a Moderna then it's for sure worth it.
And maybe all those positive examples were just inches away from being touted as negative examples, quite like Fedex was.
[+] [-] smeej|3 years ago|reply
https://blog.kraken.com/post/15002/kraken-proof-of-reserves-...
[+] [-] Gwypaas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hi5eyes|3 years ago|reply
the point of crypto is the ability to self custody without intermediary and verify funds are sound on-chain
non-custodial defi solves many of these issues
[+] [-] 323|3 years ago|reply
> Bankman-Fried told the Financial Times the $8bn related to funds “accidentally” extended to his trading firm, Alameda, but declined to comment further.
Oh look, $8bn just appeared on the balance sheet. Where did they come from? Doesn't matter, surely they are legit. I mean, I have so many billions, $8bn is pocket change. Lets use the $8bn for trading immediately.
[+] [-] superkuh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epistasis|3 years ago|reply
> SBF: So, you know, X tokens [are] being given out each day, all these like sophisticated firms are like, huh, that's interesting. Like if the total amount of money in the box is a hundred million dollars, then it's going to yield $16 million this year in X tokens being given out for it. That's a 16% return. That's pretty good. We'll put a little bit more in, right? And maybe that happens until there are $200 million dollars in the box. So, you know, sophisticated traders and/or people on Crypto Twitter, or other sort of similar parties, go and put $200 million in the box collectively and they start getting these X tokens for it.
> And now all of a sudden everyone's like, wow, people just decide to put $200 million in the box. This is a pretty cool box, right? Like this is a valuable box as demonstrated by all the money that people have apparently decided should be in the box. And who are we to say that they're wrong about that? Like, you know, this is, I mean boxes can be great. Look, I love boxes as much as the next guy. And so what happens now? All of a sudden people are kind of recalibrating like, well, $20 million, that's it? Like that market cap for this box? And it's been like 48 hours and it already is $200 million, including from like sophisticated players in it. They're like, come on, that's too low. And they look at these ratios, TVL, total value locked in the box, you know, as a ratio to market cap of the box’s token.
> ...
> Matt Levine: I think of myself as like a fairly cynical person. And that was so much more cynical than how I would've described farming. You're just like, well, I'm in the Ponzi business and it's pretty good.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/sam-bankm...
[+] [-] shawabawa3|3 years ago|reply
However he runs an exchange, not one of these magic boxes, and he was never saying or claiming that that was what ftx was doing
[+] [-] eis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guywithahat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephc_int13|3 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/The_Prologuist/status/158967849854920704...
[+] [-] wwarner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliwary|3 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/noekVG8XLQI?t=45
[+] [-] AmericanOP|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilikehurdles|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AmericanOP|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aeternum|3 years ago|reply
So FTX had an 11% leverage ratio, pretty good.