So Sonatine,
You are predicting a tremendous crash of Tesla stock price in the next couple years?
Printable View
So Sonatine,
You are predicting a tremendous crash of Tesla stock price in the next couple years?
:popcornQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalam
Remember the glee you guys had about institutions getting into crypto?
Robinhood $12 —> $8. They had like 7% of SBF
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, via its Teachers' Innovation Platform, Temasek, Sequoia Capital, Sea Capital, IVP, ICONIQ Growth, Tiger Global, Ribbit Capital, Lightspeed Venture Partners and funds and accounts managed by BlackRock.
The list is endless
Tom Brady incorporated and Giselle. Big
SBF is a legend
This time it’s some big players instead of retail hope-a-trons
Sonatine was right.
There is more to come
Long some gold Tellafriend
SBF has 7.5% of HOOD. You got it backwards. What do Bernie Madoff, Howard Lederer and SBF have in common? I think Kanye West can answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Yeah, I got it backwards. I should know better as I posted couple months ago that FTX was looking to buy Robinhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Small_BananaSBF has 7.5% of HOOD. You got it backwards. What do Bernie Madoff, Howard Lederer and SBF have in common? I think Kanye West can answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Sound on …. Love the Ventures California surf instrumentals
san i dont know if youre keeping a real peeled eye on things as they develop but have you been reading these weird apology posts from sbf?
like.. how should i put this... i dont think he's really understanding the severity of his peril. it just seems like hes spent the last 3 days doing adderall and getting emotionally suckdicked by the minions and lackeys in his little narcissist bubble and absolutely 100% has not spoken to a criminal defense lawyer about his actual exposure/liability.
oh also ftx.us is about to shut its doors too.
Shut up Garrett
He def has issues but every criminal does the apology tour - most often before sentencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Remember the movie “Quiz Show”? Charles Van Doren was the handsome academic from a learned blue blood family who got caught up in a cheating scandal on a television quiz show. The script sought to convey the feeling Van Doren had of destroying his family’s reputation. Lotta similarities to the Fried family. Not just SBF’s parents but he has other astounding relatives.
SBF was simultaneously trying to continue in their footsteps of contributing to the public good somehow whilst laboring in a skeevy financial niche. The ends justified the means. He was gonna do good things with his “magic money”.
You can’t print wealth.
Can a Tesla melt steel beams?
Tight business plan there Musk. I can't wait to see what other HOF business decisions you have in store for Twitter!
I don’t follow any of this closely, so genuinely curious. Who stole everyone’s money?
What tribe does this individual belong to? Is it small-hatted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
russian disinfo that started with kim dot com btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
if the money is 90% leverage, does it really exist? or is it just a loan that will never be paid? there have been a few efforts in history to sort out how best to deal with this problem..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbOzfXAJm4I
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
russian disinfo that started with kim dot com btw.
Is BRICS fake news? Genuine question.
Kim hates Biden with a passion but why carry water for the Russians? I mean him specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devideeQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Is BRICS fake news? Genuine question.
Kim hates Biden with a passion but why carry water for the Russians? I mean him specifically.
re BRICS, here's kims original post:
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status...33460032737282
i mean, check the comments. approximately 100% of the rubes jocking BRICS are bitcoin maxis / libertarian weirdos.
meanwhile...
Brazil - just flipped leftist
Russia - its almost inevitable that they nuke us then get counter nuked / broken up / sold off
China - pretty much ever aspect of their economy is prose thats rubber stamped by CCP goons
India - lmao. probably going along with this so they can keep their russian oil access
South Africa - rare earth / mineral rights being poached by china makes them relevant here but ultimately thats china's card to play, not theirs
so yeah maybe someday the USD really does tip over and this is the only game in town but even if china blockaids taiwan and shit well and truly hits the fan, like what exactly are they offering here? seems like a way for russia to keep the lights on and feel relevant basically.
regarding kim himself, maybe he just loves the attention he gets from amplifying posts from thegrayzone.com. maybe he gets paid for it but also finds the perceived effect of doing it agreeable. usually its something like that. if he fucks up again, expect him to be posting pics of martinis with snowden.
I think the massive US debt makes BRICS more compelling than you believe.
Also, what about nations who don’t really want to be forced to have gay pride parades just so they can eat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
the debt argument is valid, god knows, and im sure a lot of nations agree re the rainbow flag issues.
i just find the whole 'the world is ready to decouple from the dollar' argument a little convenient considering russia's fall from whatever constitutes grace there, saudis finally realizing that if the world goes green they lose their solid gold lambos, china's incredibly romantic interpretation of the word 'economy' so on so forth.
like when i put debt / cultural issues on the graph in a scale i imagine is appropriate to the other issues in play, they just dont seem as compelling as the cases against.
I find the whole “the world is ready to decouple from petroleum” counterproductive for those who occupy reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by devidee
the debt argument is valid, god knows, and im sure a lot of nations agree re the rainbow flag issues.
i just find the whole 'the world is ready to decouple from the dollar' argument a little convenient considering russia's fall from whatever constitutes grace there, saudis finally realizing that if the world goes green they lose their solid gold lambos, china's incredibly romantic interpretation of the word 'economy' so on so forth.
like when i put debt / cultural issues on the graph in a scale i imagine is appropriate to the other issues in play, they just dont seem as compelling as the cases against.
Energy density. energy density. This is the guiding mantra
LULZ at Robot Money nerds losing their life savings to the DNC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
a far more informed take than mine;
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...547168768.html
some market maker types are poking some holes in the finer points of that thesis but if nothing else its educational and probably at least partially correct.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraudulent company received a higher ESG score on “Leadership & Governance” than did Exxon Mobil.
I dont have a particular opinion on FTX one way or another. But I feel that most banks ("real" and Crypto) would have the same problem if everyone tried to withdraw at once. Of course real banks have governments to prop them up. So it seems the real moral of the story is that if you want to run a bank, make sure there is a lot of people with a lot of guns making sure you stay afloat if something goes wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalam
as someone pointed out elsewhere, the difference between unicorn juggernaut and ponzi is often a bear market suddenly appearing.
ftx's biggest holding was 2.2bn USD of some shitcoin that has a current notational value of like 84m USD.
their model required market liquidity to survive and when it went away, they didnt survive.
the fact that the top dogs were a dozen amphetamine addicted polyamorous weirdos living together in a penthouse in the bahamas lends itself to the theory that they simply didnt have the financial / management acumen to hedge against downturns, only double down on hypergambling to gut through them.
Ok. I read that customers attempted $6 billion in withdrawals in a short time span in a panic. Do you think Binance, Coinbase or any other exchange could survive that? Could most US banks survive that? My gut is no, but I really dont know. The point is the narrative seems to be all about the eccentricities of the owner (and his questionable money management), and seems to be missing the forest for the trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalam
as someone pointed out elsewhere, the difference between unicorn juggernaut and ponzi is often a bear market suddenly appearing.
ftx's biggest holding was 2.2bn USD of some shitcoin that has a current notational value of like 84m USD.
their model required market liquidity to survive and when it went away, they didnt survive.
the fact that the top dogs were a dozen amphetamine addicted polyamorous weirdos living together in a penthouse in the bahamas lends itself to the theory that they simply didnt have the financial / management acumen to hedge against downturns, only double down on hypergambling to gut through them.
In China recently didn't Chinese citizens try to make a run for their money and were met with tanks that told them to go home? In comparison, seems that FTXs main shortcoming was lack of tanks.
--Why would the DNC need a fundraising scam in the first place? Thanks to lax fundraising laws that both parties take advantage of, there isn't really any need. The DNC can (and does) raise practically infinite money completely in the open from a variety of special interest (that they in turn give favorable legislation to), and no-one cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
Nothing to see here…
Quote:
Originally Posted by KalamOk. I read that customers attempted $6 billion in withdrawals in a short time span in a panic. Do you think Binance, Coinbase or any other exchange could survive that? Could most US banks survive that? My gut is no, but I really dont know. The point is the narrative seems to be all about the eccentricities of the owner (and his questionable money management), and seems to be missing the forest for the trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
In China recently didn't Chinese citizens try to make a run for their money and were met with tanks that told them to go home? In comparison, seems that FTXs main shortcoming was lack of tanks.
mark cuban actually made an interesting post about all this;
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1591470047499018241
banks savings are FDIC insured up to a point so even if you get turned away at the door, as long as there is a functional government, youre $100k per account or whatever is covered, it just not might be immediately available. so a bank run isnt really a great analog scenario. but of course ftx wasnt a bank, it was an offshore gambling site if we are being honest.
and its biggest sin was that it was doing incredibly stupid shit. just ... weird shit.
in your china example, you have people showing up to demand their yuan, and being sent home with tanks because banks dont have that much cash on hand. no bank has enough cash on hand to cover client savings. but they do have positions in the market they can unwind to cover those accounts, they just need to be given the opportunity to do so, or to be extended short term cash loans to cover them etc etc.
now recently, in early summer, small banks in rural china started becoming insolvent (i think thats the particular example youre referring to). i forget the particulars but i think the banks were caught up from heavily leveraged investments in the scam real estate sector, something like that. so anyway they go insolvent and customers were unable to access their money for months. but china is covering those losses because of course it is, and there was never any real doubt that it would because to not do so would raise bigger questions about the yuan and invite greater scrutiny into a economy whose growth is largely predicated on opacity.
ftx was never going to get tanks because it wasnt the banks deploying tanks in china, it was china itself. ftx has no army behind it, private or other. ftx has no central bank behind it, or government; there is no FDIC insurance there. you cant do weird shit like issue perps on a coin you own 90% of if you are FDIC insured. and doing weird shit was ftx's bread and butter. alameda had some of the most profitable trading desks in crypto, they topped leaderboards consistently. and sam knew it, so sam felt like it was basically his fucking job to make 100x levered yolos on that pattern repeating. after all, thats pretty much exactly how you end up worth $15bn on paper.
and its worth noting that if CZ hadnt tossed a lit match on this pile of oily rags ftx called a ledger, ftx and its clients were probably one bull run away from being financially stable. all that insane hypergambling would have paid off.
...the notion that there was some sort of grift at work where sam and his cozy bahamian sex cult were deliberately robbing people increasingly appears to be an invention of substandard imaginations and conspiracy theorists.
I just hate everything here - especially the Cuban tweet. I respect the brainstormingQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalam
mark cuban actually made an interesting post about all this;
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1591470047499018241
banks savings are FDIC insured up to a point so even if you get turned away at the door, as long as there is a functional government, youre $100k per account or whatever is covered, it just not might be immediately available. so a bank run isnt really a great analog scenario. but of course ftx wasnt a bank, it was an offshore gambling site if we are being honest.
and its biggest sin was that it was doing incredibly stupid shit. just ... weird shit.
in your china example, you have people showing up to demand their yuan, and being sent home with tanks because banks dont have that much cash on hand. no bank has enough cash on hand to cover client savings. but they do have positions in the market they can unwind to cover those accounts, they just need to be given the opportunity to do so, or to be extended short term cash loans to cover them etc etc.
now recently, in early summer, small banks in rural china started becoming insolvent (i think thats the particular example youre referring to). i forget the particulars but i think the banks were caught up from heavily leveraged investments in the scam real estate sector, something like that. so anyway they go insolvent and customers were unable to access their money for months. but china is covering those losses because of course it is, and there was never any real doubt that it would because to not do so would raise bigger questions about the yuan and invite greater scrutiny into a economy whose growth is largely predicated on opacity.
ftx was never going to get tanks because it wasnt the banks deploying tanks in china, it was china itself. ftx has no army behind it, private or other. ftx has no central bank behind it, or government; there is no FDIC insurance there. you cant do weird shit like issue perps on a coin you own 90% of if you are FDIC insured. and doing weird shit was ftx's bread and butter. alameda had some of the most profitable trading desks in crypto, they topped leaderboards consistently. and sam knew it, so sam felt like it was basically his fucking job to make 100x levered yolos on that pattern repeating. after all, thats pretty much exactly how you end up worth $15bn on paper.
and its worth noting that if CZ hadnt tossed a lit match on this pile of oily rags ftx called a ledger, ftx and its clients were probably one bull run away from being financially stable. all that insane hypergambling would have paid off.
...the notion that there was some sort of grift at work where sam and his cozy bahamian sex cult were deliberately robbing people increasingly appears to be an invention of substandard imaginations and conspiracy theorists.
If CZ didn’t call bullshit and sell - things woulda been fine? No run? Ppl wanting out of a fraud is just reflex.
SBF and Caroline were trying to escape insolvency by gambling with customer funds. This was the unpardonable sin. Absent this crime they had no dough to play with.
Caroline and co were not trading geniuses. She was lighting money on fire.
I’ll try to deflect your animosity toward me with a potentially entertaining diversion. I haven’t dug in yet but did Citadel do a deal with Alameda where they swapped GME, AMC meme squeeze paper for FTT? Was that the fuse? Was that the Caroline trade from which could never recover?
We need to take a break from the SBF craziness and survey the broader field. We will be rewarded I think.
The exchanges were always your theme from nearly day one.. scammy filthy fraudsters. always were
i dont know what to tell you when you manage to say crypto leaderboards dont exist and newsom isnt a cali democrat in 2 consecutive posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarI just hate everything here - especially the Cuban tweet. I respect the brainstormingQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
SBF was trying to escape insolvency by gambling with customer funds. This was the unpardonable sin.
Caroline and co were not trading geniuses. She was lighting money on fire.
I’ll try to deflect your animosity toward me with a potentially entertaining diversion. I haven’t dug in yet but did Citadel do a deal with Alameda where they swapped GME, AMC etc paper for FTT?
"SBF was trying to escape insolvency by gambling with customer funds."
like honestly as opposed to whom exactly?
like, the more these kids gambled, the more the crypto bull run rewarded them, and the louder the world applauded.
the same people insisting that the root cause of this collapse be pinned on some orchestrated deliberate grift have been the voices most conspicuously silent about an entire financial gambling industry predicated on synthetic securities with literally 0 intrinsic value.
Jan 18, 2021:
Renaissance Says Losses Should Have Been Expected at Some Point
Quant hedge fund tells clients that drop of 20% to 30% was partly due to increased volatility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QLkHrMNDrY
Your first line may best describe the crypto eraQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
My personal favorite quote describing our times
“they mistook leverage for genius”
Steve Eisman (Big Short star)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarYour first line may best describe the crypto eraQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
My personal favorite quote describing our times
“they mistook leverage for genius”
Steve Eisman (Big Short star)
everyone loves a ponzi on the way up, amirite?
speaking of the big short and as mentioned on the other site, michael lewis was embedded with sbf for 6 months.
im guessing 95% of the book is exactly your take on this and the last chapter is him saying 'but honestly is any of this really some huge departure from what investment banks and hedge funds do every day?'
You made my day. I had no idea. I have checked in from time to time on Lewis. I was fearful he might have packed it in after his daughter’s death.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Lewis often starts with an article that subsequently demands a book.
Can he submit anything before 6 months? I lean over
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarYou made my day. I had no idea. I have checked in from time to time on Lewis. I was fearful he might have packed it in after his daughter’s death.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Lewis often starts with an article that subsequently demands a book.
Can he submit anything before 6 months? I lean over
as you can imagine, theres a massive bidding war for film rights to the book taking place at the moment so hes being fairly cloistered re content.
Read the Forbes SBF piece on the printed page in a library.
Strike me dead if I’m lying.
Forbes really has become Newsweek. Forbes clearly needs to offer a big print edition for their audience.
I keep checking Fandango for the Liars Poker premiere.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
as you can imagine, theres a massive bidding war for film rights to the book taking place at the moment so hes being fairly cloistered re content.