Sam Bankman-Fried the "savior" and his ideas

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

How Sam SBF and FTX acquired Celsius while they have similar risk taking approach and same issues like Celsius. It is a ridiculous acquisition from FTX and it is surprising to see a few months after that, they did not have solution to strengthen their treasury.

The bad treasury managements of FTX and Celcius are unbelievable but they did make very basic mistake. Using a non-stable asset as a collateral for their treasury. I don't completely agree with all sayings from Binance and CZ but months ago, when $UST stable coin crashed, CZ tweeted that a stable coin is a good one if it is backed by a stable asset. Like BUSD which is backed by fiat currency (at least it is what they claimed they are doing).

CZ’s FAQ 8 - On LUNA/UST and Taking the Right Risks

[NotATether]

How Sam SBF and FTX acquired Celsius while they have similar risk taking approach and same issues like Celsius. It is a ridiculous acquisition from FTX and it is surprising to see a few months after that, they did not have solution to strengthen their treasury.

What? Since when did they acquire Celsius?

[Kakmakr]

Sam Bankman-Fried should never have climbed into bed with Binance, because they are supposedly running a very shady operation. The moment when Binance are going to be put under scrutiny from the regulators, things are going to start to fall apart very quickly. 

Binance saw an opportunity to throw FTX Exchange under the bus and they went for it, by simply pulling their rescue deal at 99.... this effectively sealed FTX's fate. (One action ...eliminated a competitor for Binance....and send the Crypto market into a panic) 

[franky1]

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..

heres how the plan works, for many companies being liquidators

imagine a dead company has $1m good assets but $2m debt
a liquidator(FTX) for a few years comes along and buys dying company for $500k (money to dead company CEO personal bank account to retire)

what the liquidator then does is transfer the $1m good assets out of the dead brand. to a good brand.
they then:
charge the dead brand 'consultation fee's (no real money changes hands) as a invoice
which then puts the dead brand at a larger debt. and shows the good brand being owed money by the dead brand
or they do a 'paper' loan to the dead brand to also show on paper the dead brand owes good brand

they then bankrupt the dead brand. meaning the good brand shows a paper loss. even though it has gained $1m of assets($500k profit)

then. the good brand is not showing "profit" but a balance sheet of X good assets. and then X 'paper' losses from the dead brand, so doesnt have to pay tax on all its REAL gains

repeat for several dead brands

eventually they have shuffled so much good assets out of the good brand into goodbrand+1. that its time to then wrap up the first good brand in a possible sell or bankruptcy because the gains:paper losses are now in very negative numbers.. making good brand become dead brand
(liquidator becomes the liquidated)

in this topics case. binance decided not to become a 'liquidator' by buying a bad 'debt' company FTX... and so FTX ran out of time

that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

[hyudien]

Binance saw an opportunity to throw FTX Exchange under the bus and they went for it, by simply pulling their rescue deal at 99.... this effectively sealed FTX's fate. (One action ...eliminated a competitor for Binance....and send the Crypto market into a panic) 

Including traders who also get a bigger risk as I experienced. 1 day before the withdrawal and the deposit was stopped I withdrew the asset at FTX and I can only see the history that says "request" and I don't know where my asset is now. FTX is now completely considered bankrupt and I have had to give up a large number of assets in it. Contacting support will only get the same excuse. From 1 to 10, I think Binance managed to get rid of its competitor at number 9.

[Bttzed03]

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..
~
~
that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

Interesting. Is this process even legal in the US?

[franky1]

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..
~
~
that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

Interesting. Is this process even legal in the US?

if you play the loopholes correctly yes its legal, its called tax avoidance.. but if you dont do it correctly, its tax evasion(illegal)


another "avoidance" loophole
which many politicians/ceo's even use for their personal accounts
they do not get paid those "gains" as income. instead they take out a personal loan from the soon to die company where the soon to die company gives the person value(the gains) where by the person has repayment terms of say $1 a month for 100 years followed by a lump sum payment at the end of the 100 years
(affordable terms in persons favour)

because its a 'loan' the person is not in profit/gains. so the person doesnt pay tax. and then when the dying company is wrapped up, the person no longer has to pay the dying company because the terms of the loan exempts them from having to repay, the debt is written off for the person because the company no longer exists to pay

[Bttzed03]

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..
~
~
that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

Interesting. Is this process even legal in the US?

if you play the loopholes correctly yes its legal, its called tax avoidance.. but if you dont do it correctly, its tax evasion(illegal)

Ah, that means they still have to fight off lawsuits or prepare if someone files a case.

It doesn't look like the safest route or exit strategy by that FTX CEO.

another "avoidance" loophole
which many politicians/ceo's even use for their personal accounts
they do not get paid those "gains" as income. instead they take out a personal loan from the soon to die company where the soon to die company gives the person value(the gains) where by the person has repayment terms of say $1 a month for 100 years followed by a lump sum payment at the end of the 100 years
(affordable terms in persons favour)

because its a 'loan' the person is not in profit/gains. so the person doesnt pay tax. and then when the dying company is wrapped up, the person no longer has to pay the dying company because the terms of the loan exempts them from having to repay, the debt is written off for the person because the company no longer exists to pay

Aren't they suppose to pay the loans to a different debt collector? From what I know, these accounts deemed as uncollectible by an active company (not bankrupt) can still be sold to a collection agency. I'm not sure if it's the same with companies that are to be liquidated.

[franky1]

Aren't they suppose to pay the loans to a different debt collector? From what I know, these accounts deemed as uncollectible by an active company (not bankrupt) can still be sold to a collection agency. I'm not sure if it's the same with companies that are to be liquidated.

if you own a company/trust/large assets. you can set the terms of a loan you are paying out to your personal account. its all dependant on the terms you set yourself that then determines if your loan can be transfered/salvaged/forced to pay back.

there are many news stories over the last few decades about "personal loans" paid to themselves, of prominent people from their business to personal accounts at NIL interest and favourable terms not requiring any/full repayment

normal loans us common people have, have terms where your loan can be sold to collectors.. becasue we common folk dont have the deciding factor on the terms. the loan creator/giver does.. but if you own the business giving loans and dont put those terms in. then its not sold on.

many ceo's, trust managers and politicians do this all the time
..
as for the liquidator scenario
charging invoices of consultation fee's or doing personal loans with dying companies can also have terms that are in favour of the person receiving the gains/value/funds. where by the giver(dying company) cant claw back the loan because of the person favouring terms

its easy to do when your both the new CEO and also the human in receipt of value from a loan.
or if you own both the liquidation company and the liquidated company, where by if handed to a separate administrator. the administrators hands are tied and can only write off the loans/debts

over all. if a business is a liquidator.(buys up dying companies to kill them off) and bankrupts them.. the liquidator eventually has to close off too..
when a business buys up a dying company and recovers it into a working sustainable business. the chances of that buyer having to also close up is less because he has now expanded his portfolio

FTX ceo was a liquidator not a recovery guy, he was bound to have to do this event eventually. im just surprised it happened so soon..


if binance did buy FTX.. if it then bankrupted FTX and binance then done the same to other companies. eventually in future binance is going to have to do same thing.. but if binance did buy and then recover FTX into a working sustainable exchange it could have strengthened binance portfolio even more.

binance decided to take the neither option.. forcing FTX hand which was a good strategy fr binance to get rid of a competitor at no cost no loss.

[livingfree]

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..
~
~
that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

Interesting. Is this process even legal in the US?

I think it's legal as long as there's supported documents to show and besides that, after he has filed for bankruptcy - he has to pay all of his debts through those other assets that he still has.

https://theatlasnews.co/breakingnews/2022/11/09/ftx-founder-files-for-bankruptcy-owes-650-million/

That's $650M of debt to get paid by him and I'm sure if it's not going to be paid by those profits generated by his "other" assets or businesses then he will be forced to sell those if he's got tons remaining on his possession.

[stompix]

How Sam SBF and FTX acquired Celsius while they have similar risk taking approach and same issues like Celsius.

What? Since when did they acquire Celsius?

He didn't.
He was planning to buy their assets, just as in his proposal with Voyager, but unlike the other, it was all just talks behind the curtains and rumors.

Like BUSD which is backed by fiat currency (at least it is what they claimed they are doing).

Not even that:
https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/introducing-busd-monthly-reserves-holding-reports-3675220544653402926

2. BUSD is fully backed by cash and cash equivalents.
3. The reserves backing BUSD are held in fully segregated, bankruptcy-remote accounts.

[Wind_FURY]

Those people/founders who are in charge of FTX are the kind of people who give Anti-Bitcoin people and the nocoiners a REAL reason to tell us "I TOLD YOU SO". They are those same CLOWNS who are in an exclusive group of STUPID like Roger Ver and Craig Wright. This latest drama is making it very embarassing to be called a "Bitcoin HODLer". Are we truly STUPID from the nocoiners' viewpoint? I believe, YES!

[Boakse]

So NOBODY is willing to name the truth?

THE JEW FUCKED THE GOYIM !!


hahahaha....

suckers...

[Lucius]

Sam Bankman-Fried should never have climbed into bed with Binance, because they are supposedly running a very shady operation. The moment when Binance are going to be put under scrutiny from the regulators, things are going to start to fall apart very quickly. 

Binance saw an opportunity to throw FTX Exchange under the bus and they went for it, by simply pulling their rescue deal at 99.... this effectively sealed FTX's fate. (One action ...eliminated a competitor for Binance....and send the Crypto market into a panic) 

I agree with that, and if it ever happens this Bankman case will be a small baby compared to what will happen then. CZ can tell fairy tales and play his behind-the-scenes games as much as he wants, but when it's his turn to pay the bills, not even the Communist Party of China will save him.

After all, what matters to all of them is how to sell their tokens in ever larger quantities and collect billions on their secret accounts. As things stand, CEX has become a double-edged sword for Bitcoin and will bleed many more times for them in the future.

[coolcoinz]

FTX customers will start demanding for more regulations.

Some regulation in the field of stable coins and exchange tokens wouldn't be a bad thing. At least it would make them disclose how much of it is backed because it's obvious that none of them are.

I've never considered buying exchange tokens because you're investing in a third layer of the system with the first being bitcoin, which leads the market, second being an exchange that issues the token, and the third being the token itself that may or may not be backed.
When you buy bitcoin, you take a risk that it could technically fail, because market manipulation isn't really a risk here unless when you're a trader.
When you hold that bitcoin on exchange, you take additional risk that the exchange could not return your coins for whatever reason, like insolvency, AML, local laws, hack, even technical problems.
In case of an exchange token, you take all the above risk plus the one that the token itself brings to the mix. For instance, the token itself could be banned in some countries, while the exchange is allowed to operate.

[TungTresa]

Power makes him forget that protecting user assets is what makes him worthy of everyone's trust. The misappropriation of assets causes losses and the users who trusted him end up bearing the consequences. This is so unfair.

[franky1]

Those people/founders who are in charge of FTX are the kind of people who give Anti-Bitcoin people and the nocoiners a REAL reason to tell us "I TOLD YOU SO". They are those same CLOWNS who are in an exclusive group of STUPID like Roger Ver and Craig Wright. This latest drama is making it very embarassing to be called a "Bitcoin HODLer". Are we truly STUPID from the nocoiners' viewpoint? I believe, YES!

this is where you need to learn the difference between BUSINESSES and bitcoin

when it comes to businesses. they are always going to do things like create their own paper losses, or tax avoidance financial records. or claim to be hacked or that they had a bug with their internal database, or some other silly way to abuse a system, that also includes scammers trying to get people to invest/hand over value with silly hopes of returns by trusting their system(such as the names mentioned in the quote)

but bitcoin itself you cant have debt/credit, false coins,
you either have coins. or you dont.

i am not embarrassed or ashamed to hoard bitcoin. i am proud to have my coin on legacy utxo where im the sole owner of the keys. where i dont hold coin in custodial services or convert value into altnets.. my coin is mine and im sole owner. my coin is my coin and im happy, i am not at the risk of needing other people to agree with my decisions to move coin. my value is mine

i dont care much for the temporary price events. because i dont base my value at the latest ATH or the whims of speculation of the moment

when people hand bitcoin to a custodian, or multisig lock it into a partnership, people need to learn they are already at risk of loss just by not having full/sole/guaranteed access to the coins.

even sidechains, subnets where the pegs and locks are not then secured by a large consensus audit system on the other network are at risk.

a unbroadcast/unconfirmed/unsettled bitcoin transaction is the same as a payment that never happened.. yes you can risk zero confirm payments, butthats a personal choice based on risk awareness of security vs versatility, with the hope and 'promise' that one day it might confirm/settle in your favour.... but accept that risk that what is promised to be paid may never end up as a confirmed amount in your favour later.

know the risk. accept the risk.
and just dont be fooled into thinking custodial or unaudited subnetworks are "bitcoin".. no matter what other people have said about how much they love and trust a business/subnetwork.


bitcoin as bitcoin on the bitcoin blockchain where only one user signs for the transfer. is secure for that person.. other things like multisig and custodian then make things less secure for people, especially when a co-partner has to sign or refuse to sign. meaning you are beholden to their acceptance/action

those that understand what bitcoin is, have no fear.. those that want users to offramp to  other networks or offramp to custodian services or even other networks that then require a 'hub'/service managed custodian .. are not the bitcoiners.

the main slogan to remember of all of this
"not your key not your coin"

there is nothing wrong with sidechains, subnets, custodians being an available option/choice. but treat them as temporary niche short term service offering. dont treat pegged coins or subnets or custodians as the offramp where people should keep value long term

[Daltonik]

As a result, SBF admitted that he screwed up and that he should have been better, also addressing an unnamed competitor, he admitted defeat, I hope we will soon find out all the details, while SBF himself found himself in the position of companies that he had previously been engaged in buying.

[Wind_FURY]

Those people/founders who are in charge of FTX are the kind of people who give Anti-Bitcoin people and the nocoiners a REAL reason to tell us "I TOLD YOU SO". They are those same CLOWNS who are in an exclusive group of STUPID like Roger Ver and Craig Wright. This latest drama is making it very embarassing to be called a "Bitcoin HODLer". Are we truly STUPID from the nocoiners' viewpoint? I believe, YES!

this is where you need to learn the difference between BUSINESSES and bitcoin

But this is where you should have learned, perhaps a very long time ago, that in Bitcoin the cabal has, and will always blame the technology. The people, mostly plebs like me, that are empowered through technologies such as Bitcoin will be called/labeled as radicals, or people who want to "break things", the "trouble makers". Why do you think they want to regulate it? To your viewpoint, they should only regulate the business, but leave Bitcoin alone, no?

[franky1]

But this is where you should have learned, perhaps a very long time ago, that in Bitcoin the cabal has, and will always blame the technology. The people, mostly plebs like me, that are empowered through technologies such as Bitcoin will be called/labeled as radicals, or people who want to "break things", the "trouble makers". Why do you think they want to regulate it? To your viewpoint, they should only regulate the business, but leave Bitcoin alone, no?

first of all IN BITCOIN there is no cabals... i think you are again confusing bitcoin with the businesses gated AROUND bitcoin that use bitcoin at the edges
there is no business "inside bitcoin"

yes i have learned years ago that groups like yourself and your buddies dotted AROUND and below and outside of bitcoin want to say bitcoin is unfit for use so you can persuade people to offramp their value to other networks that rely on users to partner up and sign for each other, requiring trust cooperation, availability and acknowledgement agreement between each other just to make payments.. slowly then requiring larger hubs to service multiple users and then custodianise those hub models to sort out the liquidity issues, which then becomes reliant on each other and requiring them to be online to even transact together..
shame your not realising your part of those groups even though i have mentioned your groups actions many times over the years

and yes your favoured subnetwork you pretend is better or ontop of bitcoin, will become more regulated due to the whole payment mechanism(routing) being a middleman service for a fee, which regulators call being a MSB/MF (money service business/money facilitator)

....
bitcoin has no ear. no eye. bitcoin cannot read government law or hear a senator/minister
however
humans can.. government laws apply to humans and businesses humans run

you cant arrest bitcoin

yes humans, cabals and businesses can do things and either create or destroy, use or abuse. and governments will regulate the human action

bitcoin was created to not be able to be attacked by any one human. there is no central business/human to shutdown/arrest
no central point to fake value/units.

but in businesses they can tweak their user accounts database.
in your favoured subnet a channel partner can create liquidity of msats without a confirmed utxo(EG thor turbo). wallet businesses can make software that changes the pegs of sat:msat from 1:100 to 1:anything, which you only realise you lost when you eventually broadcast months later

once you realise that bitcoin itself is different to the subnetworks and businesses you love and trust and admire and promote. you might see the separation better and maybe actually appreciate bitcoin, rather than your silly subnets and services you prefer to admire

bitcoin is better, and unlike you im sticking with it
i dont hoard my coins on exchanges or silly subnets or sidechains
...
with all that said.
yes there are many other groups that also finger point business/subnet flaws onto bitcoin
many altnetters do and will use these business/custodian/sub/sidenet event failures to try to blame bitcoin for it, and then stupidly/ironically/hypocritically then advertise their services.. but smart people that can tell the difference are in no doubt. bitcoin is still strong