Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjr00 | Hacker News Reader

At this point you have to apply Occam's Razor... it's hard to imagine this is anyone but SBF trying to liquidate as much as he possibly can before moving to a country without an extradition treaty. He's allegedly also trying to sell his stake in RobinHood through back channels[0], which would support this.

And I mean, at this point he's so legally fucked it doesn't really matter if he gets caught doing this, so there's no need to be subtle about it. For him, sloppy is fine if it's quick.

[0] https://twitter.com/Loopifyyy/status/1591489987459297282

View on HN

This whole thing is so bizarre. It is almost like Brian Armstrong or Jesse Powell exit scamming their respective exchanges, or perhaps my impression of SBF has been completely wrong. If SBF does intend to be a fugitive, does he really think this is going to end up OK for him?

He really thought FTX US was solvent less than 24 hours before declaring bankruptcy. Either he’s a fraud or he’s clueless. Either way, he’s not thinking, let alone whether he’ll end up ok.

I’m struggling to phrase this in a high brow way, but being the son of powerful parents might be a factor too. It’s possible that this is the first time in his life that anyone is telling him not to do X for an X he really wanted to do.

Him being the second largest donor to the Democratic Party will really test the rule of law. Does it apply to the powerful? We’ll see.

Given how he stole customer funds to prop up Alameda, fraud is far more likely than clueless

> Him being the second largest donor to the Democratic Party will really test the rule of law. Does it apply to the powerful? We’ll see.

Past money only gives you leverage as long as people believe there are potentially plenty more in the future to get.

>He really thought FTX US was solvent less than 24 hours before declaring bankruptcy

No, he SAID he did.

I don't know if you know this, but people can... lie!!!! u_u

While I also caught that wording mistake, the checksum in the next sentence--which includes "either he's a fraud"--indicates sillysaurusx does understand this and simply worded that first sentence awkwardly (so there's no need to get quite so intense).

> Him being the second largest donor to the Democratic Party will really test the rule of law. Does it apply to the powerful? We’ll see.

Bernie Madoff was a large donor to the Democrats and it didn't help him one bit. I see no reason to believe that the situation will be any different regarding SBF, if he is indeed culpable.

Bernie Madoff got away with it for 40 years BECAUSE he was making money for the powerful, not despite it.

I think jail is the most secure place to him, IMHO if he doesn't end up in jail someone will kill him, he screwed good and bad actors. It is not like Madoff screwing people who will not retaliate at the violent level.

If you believe the theories about Epstein etc, jail is not always a secure place if people want you dead.

The difference is that Epstein had dirt on them, some of which is also in a few little black books that the FBI has probably lost from their evidence locker.

Epstein and Maxwell are the only human traffickers ever to be convicted without anyone in the DoJ even questioning who they trafficked children to.

SBF and Madoff just took some of their money.

>>who they trafficked children to

Well, in the very least, we have flight logs. I think that's better than nothing.

Interesting to discuss this. Assuming Epstein was killed, I think Epstein case is special for his strong connections with the US power AND knowledge about these people and organizations. I don't it is easy to work at the jail level (without leaving tracks) if you are not a US insider. I see the SBF case different: he has screwed people around the globe with multiple different ethics about how to solve the issue. I see his position comparable with Salman Rushdie situation but not related with religion.

BTW, where can someone learn about the Epstein story? In the surface it seems a very rare character, for me, at least, it is difficult to connect the pederastian and procurer with someone who made a lot of money from other unknown activities. It seems these two, are separate things and it is not clear why he don't just pursued one of these activities and why he and Maxwell were abusing people at the same time instead of separating their business with their personal sexual choices. Top drug dealers see drugs as a business because having an addiction will ruin it.

Epstein had every reason in the world to kill himself. But yes, in general, prison is not a secure place if there are people that want you dead. You're around plenty of people who wouldn't blink at stabbing you if it means they'll get some money in their commissary account or if a gang compels them to do it.

Which prison gang would take him in, though? Most prison gangs are race/ethnicity based and I don't think the Aryan Brotherhood would be too keen to take in a Jew who donated billions to leftist political causes.

If he manages to hang on to his last $900 million I don't think he'll have a problem making friends.

Guys who commit crimes with spreadsheets don’t go to those kinds of prisons.

How many homicides happen in West Palm Beach or San Mateo?

People who think this guy won't come out still a millionaire out of this are delusional. As I said enough money to have a mansion in West Palm Beach or San Mateo, he'd only have to party at home for a while.

> If SBF does intend to be a fugitive, does he really think this is going to end up OK for him?

Honestly, if he manages to sneak to Laos or the Maldives, even with a mere $100m or so? Yeah he'd most likely be fine, especially if he lays low. A similar example at smaller scale is Sam Jain[0] who ran eFront in the early 00s; he defrauded businesses of tens of millions and ran off somewhere. He's been a fugitive for over a decade but still has multiple millions of dollars to life off of.

Biggest difference is Jain was mainly defrauding businesses, whereas SBF defrauded billionaires... wherever he goes, I'm sure 24/7 armed security is going to be on his shopping list.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_Shaileshkumar

or Gerald Cotten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_Fintech_Solutions

fine is a stretch, being stuck in a country for the rest of your life when you're 30 years old sucks. not being able to see your parents etc.

on top of all of that, im sure there are a large number of people that want him dead at this point?

The U.S. law enforcement really starts the Consequence Train up if the wrong people get screwed. Ironically, the billionaires who seek justice for their scammers are the ones who also spend a ton of money gutting the government of its power of prosecution and oversight.

Don't worry: the JustUs department's power is ready to go for the right people, just not us.

He’s probably in the panic/negotiation phase of it all. He knows he’s cooked but possibly he can escape with enough money to pay the right people in the right places what they need to secure passage for himself.

Your impression was wrong. Zhu Su of 3AC infamy had the evidence sitting on Twitter since 2019 and nobody cared.

https://twitter.com/zhusu/status/1116945693946433536

Isn’t SBF now in Argentina?

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1591348369271971841...

Unlikely: https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/11/has-sam-bankman-fried-e...

That would be a weird choice, since Argentina has an extradition treaty with the US.

Has borders with 5 other countries he can disappear into, including Brazil, which won't extradite him if he fathers a Brazilian child.

I would be much more worried about people that lost money than being a fugitive.

People like this end up dead before any law enforcement gets to them.

Either that or someone who had an active backdoor realizing oh shit, cashing out is now or never.

In a scenario like this and say you’re an employee with your own money in the system. Is it illegal to take out exactly what you’re owed on the way out and before proceedings prevent such action?

Yes, same is it’d be illegal for me to break into your house and steal something you stole off me. The “act” is illegal no matter the reasoning.

The reasoning would probably have influence on how hard you were punished though.

Yes, because they're company funds, not yours. By definition, a bankrupt company has less assets than liabilities, so the liquidation process is about splitting them up equitably.

That makes sense. What I was thinking though is that the company turned off withdrawals. Are they required to do that? What’s the threshold? Because couldn’t an employee just flip the switch back on and withdraw like any other customer? (That clearly didn’t happen here though.)

It’s a curiosity to me about how these things all go down in a broader sense. Because clearly something went way wrong at FTX. But are authorities swooping in, as in literally and physically, at this point? It seems all sorts of shenanigans could be happening in the offices, which to my understanding is also where they live or close to it (at least some of the offices).

It’s like authorities know a figurative bloodbath is going on, but for these financial crimes, the response is a bit slower than a literal bloodbath.

You could flip all kind of switches as employee. This are not technical constraints, but legal ones.

Going by the twitter accounts of some (ex)FTX employees, they have not yet realized what might be coming their way. I.e it doesn't matter if authorities are busting down your door right now, whatever you say or do now can have implications.

> Going by the twitter accounts of some (ex)FTX employees, they have not yet realized what might be coming their way. I.e it doesn't matter if authorities are busting down your door right now, whatever you say or do now can have implications.

Certainly anyone in their situation should have personally lawyered up days ago, no matter what level of employee. Even if I was a low-level employee with absolutely no proper knowledge of this stuff, I would lawyer up because the people at the top will look for any scapegoat.

There’s a nagging curiosity, that likely everyone shares, about having a play by play of what actually happened during this week (after the downfall) and what should have happened.

Yes, spoke with a lawyer about legality of getting funds if the exchange in one way or another (not hacking in this case). The tldr is that once the insolvency is known, if you take your entire “share” you’re really taking some share that belongs to the rest of the folks ftx can’t serve and there might be clawbacks.

Doing so via unauthorized withdrawals almost certainly adds a layer of actual crime?

If you’re a company insider technically speaking you’re not allowed to take a dime out of a company for personal gain/reimbursement starting the moment you become aware of the company’s insolvency.

I see what you mean, but is it insider information in this case? From my understanding, many (most?) employees found out about it via published news articles.

I am making no reference to insider information at all.

The relevant fact is the company’s insolvency.

If you’re in an executive position at a company, and you know the company is insolvent, and you’re appropriating company funds for yourself, you’re breaking the law. It doesn’t matter if the company owes you that money.

There’s a little subtlety here of course but this wouldn’t be an example of that.

He shouldn't bother. Soon he'll be offered a book deal, a movie deal and an exclusive interview deal that will net him enough money to live comfortably for at least a few decades. Not to mention that after his not-so-significant prison term he'll become a motivational speaker at 50 grand a pop.

he could be looking at long time in jail, no one wants to associate with him at this point

I bet in a few years he raises VC money for a new venture

Yeah, I think the question "Does Marc Andreesen associate with scam artists" has been quite conclusively answered by now. I can just see it now "Well he built an amazing business last time..."

He's already on the meeting calendar with ____.

Citation needed for "not so significant", people behind lesser Ponzis have gotten decades in jail.

Was Martin Shkreli's and Jordan Belfort's prison terms significant?

In any case, when you ruin people's lives, any prison term is insignificant.

Shkreli got 7 years, for crimes where it's debatable how much, if any, money his investors lost. I think 7 years in prison is pretty significant.

Belfort got 2 years, another exec at his company got 3 years. That doesn't seem significant. On the other hand, they got a deal because they cooperated, leading to 24 people at another fraud company being charged, one of whom got 22 years.

(The fellow who got 22 years is now out. He's on Twitter at @TheReal_Wolf_, and is involved in NFTs. Hmm.)

I don't think SBF would qualify for Shkreli's treatment, because people were significantly harmed. Would he get Belfort's treatment? Maybe, if he has the goods to bring down a bunch of other people.

As far as I know, Shkreli and Belfort only affected a small number of investors in the US.

SBF operated in MANY jurisdictions worldwide, and had a (now embarrassing) association with government officials. It's likely more governments will go after him than the other two. It's possible his situation results in more prison time than even Do Kwon, founder of Luna/Terra.

In some states like NY, the money you make from writing/talking about your crimes go to the victims of your crime. That's why Inventing Anna (Netflix series inspired by true events) didn't make any money for the real (but not so real) Anna Delvey.

Those laws have mostly been ruled out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law Per that article, the present version of the NY law allows extended time to sue for damages.

s/SBF/SBF or one of his 10 polyamorous roommates.

Edit: Roommates who are in a mutually intertwined amorous relationship. No offense intended.

Could we avoid insulting poly people? I know it’s a little strange, but there’s nothing wrong with being strange.

Imagine how it would sound if one were to s/polyamorous/gay for example.

(Trying hard to keep my comment substantive. I’ll stop doing this if it leads to a poor discussion though.)

The poly movement is pretty interesting in general: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxcxftQ/ There’s an ongoing TikTok series that’s witty and fun. I’ve found myself drawn in by it.

More: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxc78H9/

>Imagine how it would sound if one were to s/polyamorous/gay for example

Unfair comparison, if gay was used that would be highlighting their sexual orientation, not the nature of the relationship between each other which is relevant in context.

I see how it seems that way, but being poly isn’t a choice, in a specific sense: you feel attraction and emotional love for others, even while you’re in a relationship. And it happens repeatedly throughout your life.

You can say “well, stop doing that.” But the comparison with being gay is all the more valid here. It’s like saying just don’t be gay.

In other words, being poly isn’t merely an agreement between three or more partners. That’s a necessary component (otherwise it would just be cheating), but it’s not sufficient. Some of the people in those three can’t help but feel that way, regardless if they used to be exclusive.

It’s doubly hard in the current social climate, because since it’s so new, there isn’t really a way to meet likeminded people yet. The app Open is the closest I’ve seen. So societal normalization is a necessary step before the movement can start flourishing.

The topic is incredibly nuanced, and thus quite hard to have a substantive conversation about. But I’m hoping one day to see the phenomenon pop up on HN so that we can have an open discussion about the merits and downsides. (There are plenty of both.)

> being poly isn’t a choice

For many it is (to such an extent that there is such a thing as "choice" all). In either case, that's beside the point.

This is not about being poly per se. This is about a bunch of hedonistic kids running a company to the ground and likely committing crimes that could fill a textbook. Being poly does not normalize multiple execs fucking each other in a billion dollar company.

If anything, avoid insulting people, period. The comment you are replying to isn't, though, unlike many other comments in this thread.

SBF made the 2nd biggest donation to Biden's campaign so I doubt he'll ever see the inside of a prison cell.

The whole story would ring a few bells if it wasn't that being seen as a "conspiracy theory" person is worse than being a murderer today: how Arthur Hayes was prosecuted and forced to resign and sued for refusing to share US custommer data, but really they sold it as him controlling the crypto leverage trading market which was dangerous for people, then right aftee the election campaign started (13 days after Biden announced he's running) SBF appeared out of nowhere (well his mom had just cofounded a couple campaign fundraising organizations), with an exchange that somehow was ok to use in the US while offering absurd amounts of leverage to trade anything, even stocks and commodities. Then they supposedly lost some huge amount of bitcoin in a hack, which no one mentions now, backed Solana which is just a centralized db they turned off whenever they wanted, etc.

Add to this the fact he legit met with the SEC to discuss regulating self custody of crypto assets (SEC file S7-25-20) while his own exchange just gave away people's money and lied about it.

His father wrote papers on how the cash economy is bad for tax collection and testified in front of congress on this.

His mom wrote papers on taxes too, oh and the organization she co founded "Mind the Gap" was involved in a scandal in 2020 where she funneled 20 million $ to a political party.

His aunt is a member of the wef and she created the first college program about climate and health.

Oh and his mom taught Caroline Ellison from Alameda, and her parents are friends with the Bankman-Fried's. Her father is head of the dept of economy at MIT so he worked with Gensler before he was appointed to the SEC, so these people are very well connected, although only a crazy person would believe it's because of their connections that they did what they did while Arthur Hayes was stopped.

Oh and he got to meet Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in a crypto conference in the bahamas and sit with them and talk, as you do of course...

Personally I didn't even need to research the guy, just a look at him and how dishonnest he looks when he talks made me delete Blockfolio right after it was bought up by FTX let alone trust this guy enough to send money to his exchange.

But let's say I was a crazy person, then as a crazy person I can't stop but notice how certain logos they use for both alameda research and ftx resemble (a little too much) some logos you can see on an FBI report on Epstein.

And as a crazy person who saw this I couldn't help but dig deeper on his family, and lo and behold the connections in banking they have are too similar to those Epstein had, and of course right after this whole ftx problem the website gets hacked and all the money that was still there was stolen and he hops on a plane and flies to Israel.

Then you get the co founder of Maker DAO tweeting about FTX insolvency and how Alameda's logo is a direct copy of a pedo ring, then a day later his body washes up on shore dead.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use this to pass severe regulations on crypto, before making owning gold illegal like they did in 1933, even J Powell said it the other day, they don't know if raising interest rates will curb inflation or not, and if it starts going haywire then people jumping ship to other commodities will only make it worse.

But hey soon enough I'll have to go the deepweb and transmit over radio to write a crazy comment like this.

If there were some shady connections between my trading firm and a paedophile ring, why do you think I would sneakily advertise that by using a similar logo?

>But let's say I was a crazy person, then as a crazy person I can't stop but notice how certain logos they use for both alameda research and ftx resemble (a little too much) some logos you can see on an FBI report on Epstein.

I'm not a crazy person, I said if I was crazy I would make the connection, good thing you're not crazy either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com