Bitcoin and the cryptospace is threatened by this legislation backed by Sam

[pixie85]

I wonder if his mother - the lawyer - is going to get him out of this. She must be moving heaven and earth right now.
Your boy fucked up, lady!

he resigned and put inplace anew CEO to manage FTX and keep it open before then filing bankruptcy.

this means he did not go down with the ship
a guy named ray is taking on the bankruptcy..
this means ray as part of the bankruptcy wont be allowed to be CEO of other/new companies for X years.. whilst SBF is free to continue other business plans he has as if there is no bankrutcy against him

he is not taking any financial or professional blame for the things FTX done. thought he personally. outside of legal says its his fault. legally he is free from this legal problem

his mom taught him well

2 days have passed and we're already beyond that.

Latest rumors:
Sam might be on the run.
The police entered his main office in the Bahamas
Sam sent 10 bln USD to Alameda and Alameda has none of that. CEO admitted to losing it all.
Alameda spent money on attack on Binance Futures and LUNA
Nobody knows where Sam got the money to start arbitrage.
Both Sam and His girlfriend Caroline had no idea how to run a company. They were lying to people and the business was made to be a scam from the start.
Caroline's father used to be Gary Gensler's boss at MIT. I guess that is going to raise a lot of questions about the lack of SEC's supervision over Alameda.

[1715494628]

1715494628

[1715494628]

1715494628

[franky1]

2 days have passed and we're already beyond that.

Latest rumors:
Sam might be on the run.
The police entered his main office in the Bahamas
Sam sent 10 bln USD to Alameda and Alameda has none of that. CEO admitted to losing it all.
Alameda spent money on attack on Binance Futures and LUNA
Nobody knows where Sam got the money to start arbitrage.
Both Sam and His girlfriend Caroline had no idea how to run a company. They were lying to people and the business was made to be a scam from the start.
Caroline's father used to be Gary Gensler's boss at MIT. I guess that is going to raise a lot of questions about the lack of SEC's supervision over Alameda.

moving 'fiat' is just paper logs on databases.. easy to shift/spend

for years sam has been buying dying companies. and paper shuffling fiat values.. while also shifting out good assets and leaving the dead companies with paper fiat debt numbers on accounting databases which then gets written off in fiat bankruptcy

im more concerned about the crypto assets. and where they will end up
because you cant destroy crypto on blockchains or remove crypto from blockchans. there is no 'debt' or 'minus bitcoin'.. there is just ownership changes of who has the keys
..
as for rumours. thanks for update. personally i like to do research and not speculate.. and only explain possible directions speculations can take.
but if true that SBF is involved with authorities not as a victim/witness to hacks and instead is on the chopping block for business bad practices(my personal opinion)
then the FIAT shuffling may be important to the fiat world. although fiat shuffling of fraud is easy.. i still remain more concerned about the crypto movements of SBF bad practices

..
when it comes to regulatory oversight
regulators(businesses) are not overwatch-active..
they instead stand back and rely on people and businesses reporting other people and businesses to regulators and then regulators decide if its worth actioning

yes i hate this. i would rather have regulators as government departments which actually are aimed more at the consumer protection by actively auditing and checking that businesses are ethical. rather than standing back and waiting for people to report things after the fact

but as said previously.. the regulators are businesses and more siding with the banks/businesses. rather than being independent watch dogs of business

[Ayers]

2 days have passed and we're already beyond that.

Latest rumors:
Sam might be on the run.
The police entered his main office in the Bahamas
Sam sent 10 bln USD to Alameda and Alameda has none of that. CEO admitted to losing it all.
Alameda spent money on attack on Binance Futures and LUNA
Nobody knows where Sam got the money to start arbitrage.
Both Sam and His girlfriend Caroline had no idea how to run a company. They were lying to people and the business was made to be a scam from the start.
Caroline's father used to be Gary Gensler's boss at MIT. I guess that is going to raise a lot of questions about the lack of SEC's supervision over Alameda.

SBF is said to be planning to flee to Dubai but has been arrested by the Bahamas authorities, Caroline is in Hong Kong and most likely she will go to Dubai to hide. FTX has business registration in the US and Bahamas, so they have the right to keep him until the investors of these two countries are adequately compensated according to regulations. that's also why when FTX blocks withdrawals, only users in these 2 countries can still withdraw.

SBF silently transferred 10 billion to Alameda without notifying shareholders, and most of this money is investors' money, not the company's capitalization or himself. I believe it was he who caused Luna's downfall and then used his money to buy up other bankrupt companies.

[bbc.reporter]

2 days have passed and we're already beyond that.

Latest rumors:
Sam might be on the run.
The police entered his main office in the Bahamas
Sam sent 10 bln USD to Alameda and Alameda has none of that. CEO admitted to losing it all.
Alameda spent money on attack on Binance Futures and LUNA
Nobody knows where Sam got the money to start arbitrage.
Both Sam and His girlfriend Caroline had no idea how to run a company. They were lying to people and the business was made to be a scam from the start.
Caroline's father used to be Gary Gensler's boss at MIT. I guess that is going to raise a lot of questions about the lack of SEC's supervision over Alameda.

SBF is said to be planning to flee to Dubai but has been arrested by the Bahamas authorities, Caroline is in Hong Kong and most likely she will go to Dubai to hide. FTX has business registration in the US and Bahamas, so they have the right to keep him until the investors of these two countries are adequately compensated according to regulations. that's also why when FTX blocks withdrawals, only users in these 2 countries can still withdraw.

SBF silently transferred 10 billion to Alameda without notifying shareholders, and most of this money is investors' money, not the company's capitalization or himself. I believe it was he who caused Luna's downfall and then used his money to buy up other bankrupt companies.

It is not only their investor's money, it's the depositors' money. Money of those people who are very much similar to everyone who frequently visits this forum.

In any case, someone shared this thread to me.

Sex is good but have you gone down the FTX rabbit hole? 🐇

https://mobile.twitter.com/cryptotea_/status/1591277985390526467?s=12&t=zxELOqs_z_A5876ODb3JAg

Watch the video in this tweet.

ONE MONTH BEFORE THE SHIT HIT THE FAN (10/11/22)
@AlderLaneEggs
 warns about $FTX &
@SBF_FTX
 etc to
@KeithMcCullough

https://mobile.twitter.com/Hedgeye/status/1591240664779743232

They start discussing on FTX on minute 34:00. The person interviewed according to those people I inquired is Alder Lane. He is one of the biggest shorters during 2008 financial crisis but he was not mentioned much in mainstream media, the news or included in movies similar to the Big Short. Alder already was speculating that FTX is a scam 1 month before it was exposed.

Read the whole thread. Epstein was mentioned, connections with Gary Gensler and the SEC, former president Clinton and plenty more. It is very head shaking hehehe.

[bbc.reporter]

Why is Sam Bankrupt-Fried not presently in the custody of the American government? Why he is still welcome to speak in this conference? Also, what will he talk about in this conference? Will it be regulations around the cryptospace or will it be the story behind his $10 billion loss, FTX orgies and the drugs? This is very head scratching.

Is Sam a government agent brought to destroy the cryptospace and give the government reasons to limit it through stricter regulations? I am beginning to speculate on this because clearly his actions were never for the cryptospace. Who is he? Who controls him? Who are his backers?



Sam Bankman-Fried says he'll speak at New York conference

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who's mostly kept to making statements on Twitter amid the collapse of the crypto exchange he once ran, said he'd be speaking with New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Nov. 30 DealBook Summit in New York.

"I’ll be speaking with @andrewrsorkin at the @dealbook summit next Wednesday (11/30)," he wrote on Twitter.

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/189626/sam-bankman-fried-says-hell-speak-at-new-york-conference

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

I reckon in Europe, this is mission accomplished for Sam Bankrupt-Fried and his creation the FTX trojan horse. This might be my most skeptical of all speculations, however, Sam Bankrupt-Fried might be a being who is supported by another being to do what he and FTX has recently done to the cryptospace.



ECB seeks urgent regulation after multiple crypto bubbles burst

Crypto investors suffered a series of blows this year from the collapse of the FTX exchange, to the crash of stablecoin TerraUSD and the decline of Bitcoin.

"This is not just a bubble that is bursting. It is like froth: multiple bubbles are bursting one after another," Panetta said in a speech in London. "Investors' fear of missing out seems to have morphed into a fear of not getting out."

Source https://www.reuters.com/technology/ecb-seeks-urgent-regulation-after-multiple-crypto-bubbles-burst-2022-12-07/

[franky1]

SEC cannot regulate the market orders or the currency. or mining
bitcoin the asset(under sec regulation) has the sec limited in their remit. meaning they cant do much but monitor payment service business

however the CFTC can
bitcoin the commodity(under the CFTC regulation) opens alot more doprs for overreach by regulators.. more then you may realise

the CFTC can do these things to the crypto sector

with market orders(price discovery)
- limit how small or big a order has to be to be a valid order
- if price spikes/dumps more then x%, circuit break.stop filling orders
- limit who qualifies as a "qualified investor"
[ list goes on]

when it comes to mining
collaborate with EPA to:
- limit mining to green/efficient mining equipment
- permit or dismiss certain area's locations of where mining can be done
- put a quota on production per location
- outright ban certain minting/staking/mining types of block creation
[ list goes on]

as for privacy
financial privacy never existed. especially when businesses/custodians/banks/payment firms had you as a customer
but this could extend to non business owned custodial services

[Darker45]

Bitcoin is not threatened by this. The crypto industry is threatened by this, though. Centralized platforms and centralized projects and whatever that offers financial products and services are the main targets, if I'm not mistaken. But rightly so. They should be strictly regulated. They're handling billions of people's money, after all. They need strict regulations. They cannot afford to be irresponsible.

And if this DCCPA thing means many of these platforms are killed in the process, I don't think it is a big problem. It's actually good. It acts as a gatekeeper. No incompetent and poorly-designed company can enter. As a matter of fact, this bill that SBF strongly lobbied for could have actually given FTX itself a hard time.

SBF is actually shooting himself in the foot in lobbying for this bill. Lucky, or unlucky, for him, FTX died even before this bill is approved.

[bbc.reporter]

Bitcoin is not threatened by this. The crypto industry is threatened by this, though. Centralized platforms and centralized projects and whatever that offers financial products and services are the main targets, if I'm not mistaken. But rightly so. They should be strictly regulated. They're handling billions of people's money, after all. They need strict regulations. They cannot afford to be irresponsible.

And if this DCCPA thing means many of these platforms are killed in the process, I don't think it is a big problem. It's actually good. It acts as a gatekeeper. No incompetent and poorly-designed company can enter. As a matter of fact, this bill that SBF strongly lobbied for could have actually given FTX itself a hard time.

SBF is actually shooting himself in the foot in lobbying for this bill. Lucky, or unlucky, for him, FTX died even before this bill is approved.

Are you telling everyone that bitcoin and the adoption of bitcoin will never be threatened by stricter regulations? Everything in the cryptospace will certainly be threatened by this. I agree that the enforcement of the regulations will never be perfect, however, similar to the effect of gun laws on gun ownership, bitcoin will become less accessible for ordinary citizens.

[Darker45]

~snip~

Are you telling everyone that bitcoin and the adoption of bitcoin will never be threatened by stricter regulations? Everything in the cryptospace will certainly be threatened by this. I agree that the enforcement of the regulations will never be perfect, however, similar to the effect of gun laws on gun ownership, bitcoin will become less accessible for ordinary citizens.

If by adoption you mean that the likes of FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, Voyager, Terra, and other centralized crypto companies and projects sprouting everywhere playing billions of people's money, then yes, it threatens adoption. If by adoption you mean that people could buy Bitcoin P2P through a legitimate DEx and then self-custody it, I don't think this is much of a threat. And, again, Bitcoin itself is not threatened by this. It cannot even be threatened with a declaration that it is a criminal's money and should therefore be made illegal.

[franky1]

what people need to realise is
bitcoin 2009-2014
was not a 'legit currency' it was treated like a property(eg pokemen card trading) where swap services(exchanges) were just treated as merchants. and so no regulator was regulating it

bitcoin 2014-2017
became a 'legit currency' exchanges were money service busineeses needing licences. and so the SEC was regulating the exchanges

bitcoin 2017-2021
already a 'legit currency' the SEC was regulating the exchanges
bitcoin became a unofficial commodity(a main product used to create other products (sidechains like liquid, subnetworks like LN). the CFTC was not regulating the currency(unofficial commodity)

bitcoin 2022
lobbying is pushing to make bitcoin the currency redefined as a commodity. thus allowing the CFTC to regulate the currency(commodity) and the exchanges/services of the currency(commodity)

now note again what can happen with CFTC regulation

SEC cannot regulate the market orders or the currency. or mining
bitcoin the asset(under sec regulation) has the sec limited in their remit. meaning they cant do much but monitor payment service business

however the CFTC can
bitcoin the commodity(under the CFTC regulation) opens alot more doprs for overreach by regulators.. more then you may realise

the CFTC can do these things to the crypto sector

with market orders(price discovery)
- limit how small or big a order has to be to be a valid order
- if price spikes/dumps more then x%, circuit break.stop filling orders
- limit who qualifies as a "qualified investor"
[ list goes on]

when it comes to mining
collaborate with EPA to:
- limit mining to green/efficient mining equipment
- permit or dismiss certain area's locations of where mining can be done
- put a quota on production per location
- outright ban certain minting/staking/mining types of block creation
[ list goes on]

as for privacy
financial privacy never existed. especially when businesses/custodians/banks/payment firms had you as a customer
but this could extend to non business owned custodial services

[NotATether]

In Washington D.C., there was a bill that was proposed by Sam Bankrupt-Fried that would give the government more oversight and create more regulations on the cryptospace which would certainly make decentralization lose some of its advantages. It is a bill that might kill the cryptospace.

Why is this guy not in jail yet? SMH

He single-handedly became the most hated person in cryptocurrency in just a matter of days, even beating Craig Wright in the process. Even the altcoin users are pissed off at him.

[eddie.gouws]

The comedy in the cryptospace never stops. I am shaking my head so many times, my head is spinning hehehe.

In Washington D.C., there was a bill that was proposed by Sam Bankrupt-Fried that would give the government more oversight and create more regulations on the cryptospace which would certainly make decentralization lose some of its advantages. It is a bill that might kill the cryptospace.

He also caused the collapse that gave the lawmakers the reason to pass the bill into law a priority. I am beginning to be very skeptical of Sam. He might not only be another cryptobillionaire. His mother is a lawyer of Hillary Clinton and an active member of the Democratic party. I will post more information if I can find them. They are easy to find. If you can help me, share them, thank you.

Read in full https://www.theblock.co/post/185746/senators-moving-forward-with-sbf-backed-bill-after-ftx-collapse

It's certainly possible that new legislation could have a negative impact on the cryptospace, but it's too soon to tell what the full effects will be. Sam is a powerful legislator, and he has backing from some of the biggest names in business. But there are also many people who are passionate about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and they aren't going to let Sam shut down the cryptospace without a fight.

So far, it seems like the negative effects of this new legislation have been mostly limited to small-scale altcoin exchanges and start-ups. The big players in the Bitcoin world seem to be weathering the storm so far. But if Sam's bill passes and is signed into law, it could spell disaster

[EarnOnVictor]

This should not surprise you, if Sam Bankrupt-Fried didn't, in no time, another person would, because the US and the whole world are full of brains and they use them well.

The crypto space is certainly underregulated, and I would not disapprove of more regulations for better accountability and security reasons. Yet, this should not surprise you since they could only target the centralized part of the space. The FTX of Sam Bankrupt-Fried operated a centralized exchange, and the advice he could give would be in that regard only as he knows the meaning of decentralization.

While the experienced holders and users of Bitcoin which is the most trusted decentralized crypto would continue using the available channels to outsmart the regulation. So, it's no cause for panic.

[Z-tight]

Crypto investors suffered a series of blows this year from the collapse of the FTX exchange, to the crash of stablecoin TerraUSD and the decline of Bitcoin.

Why are they including the fall or decline in the price of BTC to the complete collapse of centralized tokens, exchanges and stablecoins like ftt, ftx and terraUSD. BTC price decline cannot and shouldn't be included in their statement of crypto bubbles bursting this year; let them concentrate on where excactly the problem is, and that's with centralized exchanges, services and tokens and not BTC.

BTC as a network has had no problems, it didn't collapse, neither can it be breached, the price decline is nothing but a correction after the last all time high, i believe these regulators always want to drag BTC into every discussion about regulation even when they know that BTC isn't a bubble, or something that can burst.

[Flexystar]

The only thought everyone should get from this is: [{SAM}-Ctrl+A=Del]
There is literally no way we should be very much concerned about such news. For one thing sure, they may start to control the exchanges, or the mediums /platform through which we can transact the bitcoin but they can not diminish the bitcoin completely.

These facts really does not change if sam comes in the picture or warren makes a statement or Elon tweets something neg/pos.

I don't know but I literally ignore such articles, or at least I have started to tell this myself. There always be someone to transact the bitcoin and it's already a pandemic version, with no cure. 

[bbc.reporter]

~snip~

Are you telling everyone that bitcoin and the adoption of bitcoin will never be threatened by stricter regulations? Everything in the cryptospace will certainly be threatened by this. I agree that the enforcement of the regulations will never be perfect, however, similar to the effect of gun laws on gun ownership, bitcoin will become less accessible for ordinary citizens.

If by adoption you mean that the likes of FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, Voyager, Terra, and other centralized crypto companies and projects sprouting everywhere playing billions of people's money, then yes, it threatens adoption. If by adoption you mean that people could buy Bitcoin P2P through a legitimate DEx and then self-custody it, I don't think this is much of a threat. And, again, Bitcoin itself is not threatened by this. It cannot even be threatened with a declaration that it is a criminal's money and should therefore be made illegal.

No by adoption this means having bitcoin be in the hands of more people adopting bitcoin. Stricter regulations will control the liquidity of how much goes in and out of the cryptospace. Centralized exchanges have the biggest liquidity and where 90% of coins exchanging hands occur.

How much of the community use decentralized exchanges and how much of us in the Bitcoin community use real peer to peer trading or swapping? I reckon it is failing in Bitcoin because we have the incorrect attitude. We imply that we want peer to peer swapping and decentralized exchanges, however, we criticize Defi and their way of doing self custody in Ethereum.

[Darker45]

~snip~

~snip~

If by adoption you mean that the likes of FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, Voyager, Terra, and other centralized crypto companies and projects sprouting everywhere playing billions of people's money, then yes, it threatens adoption. If by adoption you mean that people could buy Bitcoin P2P through a legitimate DEx and then self-custody it, I don't think this is much of a threat. And, again, Bitcoin itself is not threatened by this. It cannot even be threatened with a declaration that it is a criminal's money and should therefore be made illegal.

No by adoption this means having bitcoin be in the hands of more people adopting bitcoin. Stricter regulations will control the liquidity of how much goes in and out of the cryptospace. Centralized exchanges have the biggest liquidity and where 90% of coins exchanging hands occur.

How much of the community use decentralized exchanges and how much of us in the Bitcoin community use real peer to peer trading or swapping? I reckon it is failing in Bitcoin because we have the incorrect attitude. We imply that we want peer to peer swapping and decentralized exchanges, however, we criticize Defi and their way of doing self custody in Ethereum.

In the event that many of these centralized exchanges wouldn't be allowed to operate because they cannot pass the new standard, this kind of adoption might indeed slow down. But I guess it would be very temporary. This is only during the transition phase. For now, people are heavily dependent on centralized exchanges for their Bitcoin purchases. For many, this is probably not the correct way, but since this seems to be the convenient way despite all the KYC processes, this has become the trend, even if there are in fact alternatives.

If such platforms would be gone, I'm very sure a different kind would take over. Developers are pretty much aware that there is a considerable demand all over the world. New platforms, probably better ones, would come out in no time.

While I'm not really technical and cannot provide you specifics, I have read countless of times why this DeFi thing is full of flaws to the point that they're all but decentralized. The great majority of them have central points of failure. Proof of which is the massive number of so-called DeFi platforms that ended up hacked or being exploited. Billions and billions are lost because they're fake. That they are severely criticized for carrying the decentralized label is certainly justified.

[TheGreatPython]

In Washington D.C., there was a bill that was proposed by Sam Bankrupt-Fried that would give the government more oversight and create more regulations on the cryptospace which would certainly make decentralization lose some of its advantages. It is a bill that might kill the cryptospace.

Why is this guy not in jail yet? SMH

He single-handedly became the most hated person in cryptocurrency in just a matter of days, even beating Craig Wright in the process. Even the altcoin users are pissed off at him.

From the most respected because of what he achieved in a short period of time to the most hated person real quick because of what he did on his own company. Crazy how fast things went for this guy. Not just BTC supporters but all crypto fans are pissed of SBF because of what he did in this market. Also, the FTT and FTX collapse made a big losses to those investors and those who store their funds inside that platform.

I am not surprised if this guy is still not in jail, that's because he has a big connection with the governments. He even made huge donations to them but the money that he use must be the money from of his own customers. It was still great that he got busted out. Now his plans of making crypto more centralized won't come to life anymore.

[bbc.reporter]

If such platforms would be gone, I'm very sure a different kind would take over. Developers are pretty much aware that there is a considerable demand all over the world. New platforms, probably better ones, would come out in no time.

While I'm not really technical and cannot provide you specifics, I have read countless of times why this DeFi thing is full of flaws to the point that they're all but decentralized. The great majority of them have central points of failure. Proof of which is the massive number of so-called DeFi platforms that ended up hacked or being exploited. Billions and billions are lost because they're fake. That they are severely criticized for carrying the decentralized label is certainly justified.

What type of demand are you talking about and what types of platforms of the different kind will take over?

Also, I cannot defend the hacks in Defi, however, what I can say is we should never discourage support of the development of protocols that encourage self custody and open accessibility. Billions were lost in them yes but how much were lost in centralized platforms like Blockfi and other centralized cryptolenders.

I also agree with Defi as not being 100% decentralized. I reckon the classification called Defi is a wrong. It should be called open finance.