[sjfidsfkds]

Duffy did testify against FTX’s proposal in Congress back in May: https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/media-room/spe...

It’s pretty strongly worded:

> FTX’s Proposal is glaringly deficient and poses significant risk to market stability and market participants.

Granted, he didn’t publicly call the guy a fraud. Avoiding libel lawsuits is probably a good habit for a risk manager.

[TacticalCoder]

> It’s pretty strongly worded:

He also says it is important for marketstakeholders and the CFTC to investigate the clear conflict of interest (between FTX and Alameda).

And he ends saying that even though he is for innovation, he says that innovation which is found to increase risk unacceptably or fails to protect consumer is against the law.

Pretty good read IMO.

[darawk]

That's a red herring though. FTX's proposal was good - it was just contrary to CME's profit interests.

[graeme]

Given everything we know of FTX, I would be shocked it they managed to produce a proposed commodites trading regulation which is:

1. Radically different from the current one, and

2. Good

Not impossible it’s true but I’d say the onus is to prove that, given the source and given the current system functions well enough

[gumby]

Was it? The author claims that it had previously been explored and found not to be worth it.

That could be puffery of course. But I have worked in several fields. A big advantage I bring is that I have an outsider's perspective and experience from a different domain ("Hey, why don't we try it this way?"). But a very big disadvantage is that when exploring something I find out that people often have thought of it and don't do things that way for good reason. For me that means I look before I speak.

A lot of the bomb-throwing suggestions of crypto revolutionaries is similar, and I have no reason to believe SBF was any different. In fact there's good reason to believe that SBF and his colleagues lacked adequate perspective, from their statements, their actions in retrospect, and frankly because of his MIT background. I'm also an MIT grad and was also an arrogant know-it-all into my late 20s (at least!) and am simply lucky that I got a few things right along the way so people were still talking to me by the time I grew up.

[pointsnfigures1]

no it was not. it was put forth by people who don't understand markets, nor do they understand risk management. looked good on a blackboard though

[otterley]

It's not slander[1] if it's true. Moreover, calling someone a "fraud" is likely to be viewed by a court as a statement of opinion, not of fact, and so it's likely non-actionable under U.S. common law.

[1] Libel is written defamation; slander is oral.

[gnicholas]

You're right that a court might find you to be expressing an opinion if you call someone a fraud, but you'll spend a lot of money on your legal defense to find this out. Calling a deep-pocketed person a fraud is buying an expensive lawsuit.

Also, the more memorable mnemonic (at least IMO) is "slander is spoken, libel is not".

[dereg]

[deleted - misconstrued statement]

[xwolfi]

Dude he meant that the net worth was all a mirage, and that anyone had more money in their pocket than SBF pretended he had in his entire net worth (because he stole it). He called him a fraud right there and all you can say is that he should have shown more respect to poor little guy SBF, him the meanie "tradfi"?

[graeme]

He meant SBF’s net worth was near zero or negative.

Most people, even rich people, do not carry much cash in their pockets…