/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52437880
Hijacking your thread for today's Money Stuff newsletter from Matt Levine, a Bloomberg contributor who's interviewed Bankman on occasion and had a good impression of him.

His newsletter can be read for free at Newsletterhunt.com. In this third newsletter, he discusses the Bankruptcy.

>>52437880
Chief Crashing Bull

>>52437975
The box
There is so much, but I want to start with Serum.

If a troubled company has a few days to beg potential investors for a bailout before it files for bankruptcy, and it sends those investors its balance sheet so they can consider investing, and they all pass, and then the company files for bankruptcy, of course the balance sheet was bad. That is not a state of affairs that is consistent with a pristine fortress balance sheet.

But there is a range of possible badness, even in bankruptcy, and the balance sheet that Sam Bankman-Fried’s failed crypto exchange FTX.com sent to potential investors last week before filing for bankruptcy on Friday is very bad. It’s an Excel file full of the howling of ghosts and the shrieking of tortured souls. If you look too long at that spreadsheet, you will go insane. Antoine Gara, Kadhim Shubber and Joshua Oliver at the Financial Times reported on Saturday:

>Sam Bankman-Fried’s main international FTX exchange held just $900mn in easily sellable assets against $9bn of liabilities the day before it collapsed into bankruptcy, according to investment materials seen by the Financial Times.

>The largest portion of those liquid assets listed on a FTX international balance sheet dated Thursday was $470mn of Robinhood shares owned by a Bankman-Fried vehicle not listed in Friday’s bankruptcy filing, which included 134 corporate entities.

>>52437992
Seems bad, but it somehow keeps getting worse:

>A spreadsheet listing FTX international’s assets and liabilities, seen by the Financial Times, point at the issues that brought Bankman-Fried crashing back down to earth. It references $5bn of withdrawals last Sunday, and a negative $8bn entry described as “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.

What.

>The vast majority of FTX Trading’s recorded assets are either illiquid venture capital investments or crypto tokens that are not widely traded, according to the spreadsheet, which cautions that the figures “are rough values, and could be slightly off; there is also obviously a chance of typos etc. They also change a bit over time as trades happen.”

What.

>In all, the spreadsheet says FTX Trading’s assets were $900mn of “liquid” assets, $5.5bn of “less liquid” assets consisting of crypto tokens, and $3.2bn of illiquid private equity investments. There is also an obscure $7mn holding called “TRUMPLOSE”. There are no bitcoin assets listed, despite bitcoin liabilities of $1.4bn.

What.

>>52437975
>had a good impression of him
>Levine
hmm...

>>52438005
And yet bad as all of this is, it can’t prepare you for the balance sheet itself, published by FT Alphaville, which is less a balance sheet and more a list of some tickers interspersed with hasty apologies. If you blithely add up the “liquid,” “less liquid” and “illiquid” assets, at their “deliverable” value as of Thursday, and subtract the liabilities, you do get a positive net equity of about $700 million. (Roughly $9.6 billion of assets versus $8.9 billion of liabilities.) But then there is the “Hidden, poorly internally labeled ‘fiat@’ account,” with a balance of negative $8 billion. [1] I don’t actually think that you’re supposed to subtract that number from net equity — though I do not know how this balance sheet is supposed to work! — but it doesn’t matter. If you try to calculate the equity of a balance sheet with an entry for HIDDEN POORLY INTERNALLY LABELED ACCOUNT, Microsoft Clippy will appear before you in the flesh, bloodshot and staggering, with a knife in his little paper-clip hand, saying “just what do you think you’re doing Dave?” You cannot apply ordinary arithmetic to numbers in a cell labeled “HIDDEN POORLY INTERNALLY LABELED ACCOUNT.” The result of adding or subtracting those numbers with ordinary numbers is not a number; it is prison. [2]

yes i prepared by putting my life's savings into coins which will be utilized by banks and governments

>>52437880
Why is regulation a boogeyman? It'd help crypto, not hurt it. If you don't want regulation you could just use DEx's.. Right?

>>52437880
No because I'm not American.

>>52438022
But here is the paragraph that drove me insane:

>The company’s biggest asset as of Thursday was $2.2bn worth of a cryptocurrency called Serum. Serum’s market value was $88mn on Saturday, according to data provider CryptoCompare, suggesting FTX’s holdings would be worth far less if sold into the market. CryptoCompare’s figures take into account the coin’s liquidity.

If you look on the balance sheet, that’s the biggest “deliverable” number: $2,187,876,172 of SRM, the ticker for the Serum token, down from $5,430,110,335 “before this week.” (“Before this week” means, of course, before last week — before the week that FTX was circulating this spreadsheet — and I will use it as a shorthand to mean roughly “before Nov. 8.” On Nov. 8, the trouble at FTX became public, and everything FTX-related crashed.)

As of about 11 a.m. today, CoinMarketCap showed the Serum token having a price of $0.25, a “market cap” of about $65 million and a “fully diluted market cap” of about $2.5 billion. Those numbers would have been a bit higher — say $0.35 to $0.40 per token — on Thursday, when this balance sheet was created. The price crashed last Tuesday, during FTX’s death throes; before that the token traded around $0.80. In round numbers FTX probably held something like two-thirds of Serum’s fully diluted market cap, and roughly 20 times its basic market cap.

>>52438033
Which ones

>>52437880
Notice how she doesn't ask for more regulation but simply asks for Gensler to do his fucking job? She is actually not being a total idiot for once. Give her some credit.

>>52438005
lmao you can't make this shit up

>>52438051
n crypto, market cap is (as CoinMarketCap puts it) “the total market value of a cryptocurrency's circulating supply … analogous to the free-float capitalization in the stock market,” while fully diluted market cap is “the market cap if the max supply was in circulation.” So if for instance some company creates a token, and says that there can be 10 billion of the token, and reserves them all for itself, and then sells 1 million of them to outside investors for $1 each, then the market cap of that token is $1 million ($1 times 1 million circulating tokens), while the fully diluted market cap is $10 billion ($1 times 10 billion total tokens), and the issuer’s 9,999,000,000 remaining tokens have a value, on this math, of $9.999 billion. We will come back to this point.

What is Serum? Serum is a “protocol for decentralized exchanges that brings unprecedented speed and low transaction costs to decentralized finance” that runs on the Solana blockchain. Also Serum (the token, ticker SRM) “is the utility and governance token of Serum (the protocol). If you hold SRM in your wallet, you receive a discount on fees” for trading on the Serum protocol. Also, when the protocol collects trading fees, it uses a portion of the fees to buy and burn SRM. The result is that SRM functions a lot like stock in Serum: If the Serum project does well and a lot of decentralized trading happens on its exchanges, then it will collect a lot of fees and use those fees to buy SRM, which will drive up the value of SRM and make SRM investors rich. (Also the SRM investors can vote on how Serum is run.) If you are bullish on Serum as a business, as a platform for decentralized crypto trading, then you should buy SRM, because SRM is more or less a claim on the cash flows of that business.

>>52437975
>here's more Jews

>>52438070
One thing that is really really really really really important to mention about the Serum protocol is that it was created and promoted by FTX and Alameda Research, the FTX-affiliated crypto hedge fund that was also founded by Bankman-Fried. FTX is a centralized crypto exchange, but a lot of people in crypto do not trust centralized exchanges (for reasons!) and prefer to trade on decentralized exchanges. Serum is, in a loose but meaningful way, the decentralized exchange of FTX.

Go back to what I said above, about a company creating a token, issuing a bunch of it to itself, and selling a little of it into the public market. Something like 3% of the total value of Serum is held by the public and trading on exchanges. The other 97% is not. Something like two-thirds of that 97% is held by FTX and Alameda.

How did they get their SRM? Well, you can look at the distribution of SRM here, but the main point is that they did not buy it on the open market for cash. When FTX’s balance sheet says that, “before this week,” it held $5.4 billion worth of Serum, that does not mean that Alameda or FTX took $5.4 billion of cash (their own, their investors’, their customers’, anyone’s) and used it to buy a lot of Serum tokens in the open market. They got all those Serum tokens for, in round numbers, free, as the initial backers of the Serum protocol. (Presumably they paid some startup costs.)

>>52437880
crypto was created as a way to do transaction freely and efficiently and now it is just part of a ponzi scheme and will be regulated to hell.
thanks you fucks.

>>52438052
XRP XLM ALGO XDC and QNT are the main ones, also ALBT HBAR SHX and SGB (bullish on Flare when it comes out). heavily weighted towards XRP because i expect a pump when the lawsuit is settled in 2 more weeks

>>52438085
For a minute, ignore this nightmare balance sheet, and think about what FTX’s balance sheet should be. Conceptually, customers give you money — apparently about $16 billion in dollars, crypto, etc. — and then you hang on to the money and owe it back to them. In the simplest world, you keep the customers’ money in exactly the form they give it to you: Someone deposits $100, you keep $100 for him; someone deposits one Bitcoin, you keep one Bitcoin for her. For reasons we have discussed — some legitimate! — FTX doesn’t quite work that way, and you could imagine some more complicated balance sheet where a lot of the money and crypto that came in from some customers was loaned to others. But broadly speaking your balance sheet is still going to look roughly like:

Liabilities: Money customers gave you, which you owe to them;

Assets: Stuff you bought with that money.

And then the basic question is, how bad is the mismatch. Like, $16 billion of dollar liabilities and $16 billion of liquid dollar-denominated assets? Sure, great. $16 billion of dollar liabilities and $16 billion worth of Bitcoin assets? Not ideal, incredibly risky, but in some broad sense understandable. $16 billion of dollar liabilities and assets consisting entirely of some magic beans that you bought in the market for $16 billion? Very bad. $16 billion of dollar liabilities and assets consisting mostly of some magic beans that you invented yourself and acquired for zero dollars? WHAT? Never mind the valuation of the beans; where did the money go? What happened to the $16 billion? Spending $5 billion of customer money on Serum would have been horrible, but FTX didn’t do that, and couldn’t have, because there wasn’t $5 billion of Serum available to buy. FTX shot its customer money into some still-unexplained reaches of the astral plane and was like “well we do have $5 billion of this Serum token we made up, that’s something?” No it isn’t!

>>52438086
Jews and Pajeets

>>52438113
One simple point here is that FTX’s Serum holdings — $2.2 billion last week, $5.4 billion before that — could not have been sold for anything like $2.2 billion. FTX’s Serum holdings were vastly larger than the entire circulating supply of Serum. If FTX had attempted to sell them into the market over the course of a week or month or year, it would have swamped the market and crashed the price. Perhaps it could have gotten a few hundred million dollars for them. But I think a realistic valuation of that huge stash of Serum would be closer to zero. That is not a comment on Serum; it’s a comment on the size of the stash.

But I do want to comment on Serum, because Serum is not some weird token that FTX cornered for some reason; Serum is a token that FTX made up. To use a loose but reasonable analogy, Serum (the protocol) is sort of FTX’s decentralized exchange subsidiary, and SRM (the token) is sort of the stock in that subsidiary. A little of the stock trades publicly, but it is mostly held by FTX, its corporate parent, as it were. The public market price of the small free float might give a reasonable estimate of the value of the subsidiary. But in the real world, the value of the subsidiary is incredibly tightly linked to the value of FTX’s overall business. If everyone is like “ah yes FTX is a good exchange operator and a leader in safe crypto trading,” then its decentralized exchange protocol has a good chance of being popular and profitable. If everyone is like “ah yes FTX is a careless fraud,” then Serum is going to have a hard time. [3] At the point that FTX is shopping its Serum stake to seek a rescue financing due to HIDDEN POORLY INTERNALLY LABELED ACCOUNT, its huge stash of Serum is toast! Just toast!

>>52437880
>You want to make business with me
>I want to do business with you
>You send me BTC through your, let's say, Electrum wallet
>I send you the job
>End of transaction

Why most people don't see it this way?

>we need to protect retards from using obvious ponzi schemes!

Bullish for Monero and all privacy projects.
Plan accordingly.

>>52438096
also looking into ATOM (Cosmos' IBC is very good bc interoperability is going to be key) DAG ACME and DOT

Coinbase is.... LE BAD!!!
Lmao, imagine not using chadbased.

>>52438143
Does this sound familiar? This is pretty much exactly what I said last week about FTT, the utility token of FTX’s regular centralized exchange. I wrote:

>FTX issues a token called FTT. The attributes of this token are, like, it entitles you to some discounts and stuff, but the main attribute is that FTX periodically uses a portion of its profits to buy back FTT tokens. This makes FTT kind of like stock in FTX: The higher FTX’s profits are, the higher the price of FTT will be. It is not actually stock in FTX — in fact FTX is a company and has stock and venture capitalists bought it, etc. — but it is a lot like stock in FTX. FTT is a bet on FTX’s future profits.

I was writing about reports suggesting that FTX might have loaned a lot of customer money to Alameda and taken Alameda’s stash of FTT tokens as collateral, [4] and I said:

>If you think of the token as “more or less stock,” and you think of a crypto exchange as a securities broker-dealer, this is completely insane. If you go to an investment bank and say “lend me $1 billion, and I will post $2 billion of your stock as collateral,” you are messing with very dark magic and they will say no. The problem with this is that it is wrong-way risk. (It is also, at least sometimes, illegal.) If people start to worry about the investment bank’s financial health, its stock will go down, which means that its collateral will be less valuable, which means that its financial health will get worse, which means that its stock will go down, etc. It is a death spiral.

>gradually I began to hate them

>>52438183
Last week I was shocked that one of the main assets of FTX — one of the main assets it relied on to be able to pay out customer balances — was a token it had just made up. But I was wrong! It was two tokens that it had just made up! FTX’s two largest asset balances, “before this week,” were $5.9 billion of FTT ($553 million at post-crash prices last Thursday) and $5.4 billion of SRM ($2.2 billion post-crash). Something like two-thirds of the money that FTX owed to customers was backed by its own tokens that it had made up.

The third-biggest asset, incidentally, was SOL, the token of the Solana blockchain. Solana is not something that FTX made up, and has an existence independent of FTX. But it is certainly associated with Alameda, FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried; they have been big backers of the Solana ecosystem. It’s not that Solana is “the blockchain of FTX,” but it’s a little bit like that. There is wrong-way risk there too.

And another big asset is $616 million worth of the MAPS token ($865 million “before last week”). MAPS is the token of Maps.me 2.0, a sort of Serum spinoff that was also launched by FTX; its market cap, according to CoinMarketCap at about 11 a.m. today, is about $3 million. Again, FTX’s MAPS holdings were two hundred times the total value of MAPS actually tradable in the market. It’s the same story as Serum, but worse, though on a smaller scale. (There’s a lot of this all over the balance sheet: Bloomberg’s Annie Massa reported on these projects today, under the headline “Sam Bankman-Fried’s Magic Money Box Enriched Vast Crypto Network.”)

>>52438156
idk man. i think even interacting with monero might be a very risky thing to do. it's basically attaching a giant red flag to your online activity.

>>52438156
never buyed crypto coins yet. gonna put 200 into monero, good idea?
seems like the best crypto in the long run as of now

>>52438206
In round numbers, FTX’s Thursday desperation balance sheet shows about $8.9 billion of customer liabilities against assets with a value of roughly $19.6 billion before last week’s crash, and roughly $9.6 billion after the crash (as of Thursday, per FTX’s numbers). Of that $19.6 billion of assets back in the good times, some $14.4 billion was in more-or-less FTX-associated tokens (FTT, SRM, SOL, MAPS). Only about $5.2 billion of assets — against $8.9 billion of customer liabilities — was in more-or-less normal financial stuff. (And even that was mostly in illiquid venture investments; only about $1 billion was in liquid cash, stock and cryptocurrencies — and half of that was Robinhood stock.) After the run on FTX, the FTX-associated stuff, predictably, crashed. The Thursday balance sheet valued the FTT, SRM, SOL and MAPS holdings at a combined $4.3 billion, and that number is still way too high.

I am not saying that all of FTX’s assets were made up. That desperation balance sheet lists dollar and yen accounts, stablecoins, unaffiliated cryptocurrencies, equities, venture investments, etc., all things that were not created or controlled by FTX. [5] And that desperation balance sheet reflects FTX’s position after $5 billion of customer outflows last weekend; presumably FTX burned through its more liquid normal stuff (Bitcoin, dollars, etc.) to meet those withdrawals, so what was left was the weirdo cats and dogs. [6] Still it is striking that the balance sheet that FTX circulated to potential rescuers consisted mostly of stuff it made up. Its balance sheet consisted mostly of stuff it made up! Stuff it made up! You can’t do that! That’s not how balance sheets work! That’s not how anything works!

>>52438086
Blame Reddit and Dogecoin, they popularized this dumb crap and now we have every country working on their own digital currency. Leftists ruin everything Libertarians create.

>>52437880
>shows how much of the industry appears to be smoke and mirrors
>how much of the industry
It's literally one scam site run by a human charicature of a greasy fat kike, you dumb communist bitch.

>>52438077
kek

>>52438005
fucking incredible, Imagine explaining that fucking excel sheet to investors
>so whats this line "hidden, poorly labeled fiat account"
>oh thats nothing
>well looks like there is 8 billion dollars there?
>actually that's a negative 8 billion

>>52438243
>warren
>communist
the right can’t possibly be this retarded…

>>52438228
Oh, fine: It is how crypto works. This might all sound familiar not just because we talked about FTT last week, but because we talked about the collapse of TerraUSD and Luna earlier this year. Terra was a blockchain system run by Do Kwon, and it raised billions of dollars by selling dollar-denominated tokens — TerraUSD — that were supposed to keep their value because they were backed by a variable amount of another token — Luna — that Kwon had also invented.

>a couple jews do scummy shit for money
>Kanye calls the entire race out
>"oy vey that's antisemite, talk about INDIVIDUALS"
>a couple jews do something scummy with cryptocurrencies for money
>"oy vey, ALL crypto is bad. ALL crypto must be regulated. NO EXCEPTIONS."
>not a single mention about the individuals that mishandled the money
>not a single mention that the way FTX mishandled the money is pretty much the same way banks mishandle the money all the time

>>52438228
>And that desperation balance sheet reflects FTX’s position after $5 billion of customer outflows last weekend; presumably FTX burned through its more liquid normal stuff (Bitcoin, dollars, etc.) to meet those withdrawals
This is interesting, and could explain the sharp sell down from over $20k and reversal what seemed like an uptrend. FTX just dumping bitcoin and anything that had liquidity.

>>52438327
Or it might sound familiar because Bankman-Fried said it himself, to me, on a now-infamous episode of Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast last year. I asked him a question about yield farming, and in the course of his answer he said:

>You start with a company that builds a box and in practice this box, they probably dress it up to look like a life-changing, you know, world-altering protocol that's gonna replace all the big banks in 38 days or whatever. Maybe for now actually ignore what it does or pretend it does literally nothing. It's just a box. So what this protocol is, it's called ‘Protocol X,’ it's a box, and you take a token. …

>So you've got this box and it’s kind of dumb, but like what's the end game, right? This box is worth zero obviously. … But on the other hand, if everyone kind of now thinks that this box token is worth about a billion dollar market cap, that's what people are pricing it at and sort of has that market cap. Everyone's gonna mark to market. In fact, you can even finance this, right? You put X token in a borrow lending protocol and borrow dollars with it. If you think it's worth like less than two thirds of that, you could even just like put some in there, take the dollars out. Never, you know, give the dollars back. You just get liquidated eventually. And it is sort of like real monetizable stuff in some senses.

>>52438387
The box, it turns out, was FTX (and Serum). It looked like a life-changing, world-altering business that would replace all the banks. It had a token, FTT (and SRM), with a multibillion-dollar market cap. You could even finance it, or FTX/Alameda could anyway: They could put FTT (and SRM) tokens in a box and get money out. (From customers.) They could take the dollars out and never, you know, give the dollars back. They just got liquidated eventually. And those tokens, FTT and SRM, were sort of like real monetizable stuff in some senses. But in other senses, not.

>>52438410
But where did it go?

I tried, in the previous section, to capture the horrors of FTX’s balance sheet as it spiraled into bankruptcy. But, as I said, there is something important missing in that account. What’s missing is the money. What’s missing is that FTX had at some point something like $16 billion of customer money, but most of its assets turned out to be tokens that it made up. It did not pay $16 billion for those tokens, or even $1 billion, probably. [7] Money came in, but then when customers came to FTX and pried open the doors of the safe, all they found were cobwebs and Serum. Where did the money go?

I don’t know, but the leading story appears to be that FTX gave the money to Alameda, and Alameda lost it. I am not sure about the order of operations here. The most sensible explanation is that Alameda lost the money first — during the crypto-market meltdown of this spring and summer, when markets were crazy and Alameda spent money propping up other failing crypto firms — and then FTX transferred customer money to prop up Alameda. And Alameda never made the money back, and eventually everyone noticed that it was gone

>>52438431
So Reuters reported last week:

>At least $1 billion of customer funds have vanished from collapsed crypto exchange FTX, according to two people familiar with the matter.

>The exchange's founder Sam Bankman-Fried secretly transferred $10 billion of customer funds from FTX to Bankman-Fried's trading company Alameda Research, the people told Reuters.

>A large portion of that total has since disappeared, they said.

And the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend:

>Alameda Research’s chief executive and senior FTX officials knew that FTX had lent its customers’ money to Alameda to help it meet its liabilities, according to people familiar with the matter. ...

>Alameda faced a barrage of demands from lenders after crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital collapsed in June, creating losses for crypto brokers such as Voyager Digital Ltd., the people said.

>In a video meeting with Alameda employees late Wednesday Hong Kong time, Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison said that she, Mr. Bankman-Fried and two other FTX executives, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, were aware of the decision to send customer funds to Alameda, according to people familiar with the video. …

>Ms. Ellison said on the call that FTX used customer money to help Alameda meet its liabilities, the people said.

>Alameda had taken out loans to fund illiquid venture investments, the people said.

>>52438469
Here we are in the realm of pure speculation, but you could imagine a number of ways this could have gone:

Crypto prices, and firms, crashed earlier this year, and Alameda spotted a huge opportunity. It deployed as much capital as it could into buying great assets at bargain-basement prices. But since there was a crypto winter, it couldn’t deploy all that much capital, and was getting calls from its own lenders. So Ellison and Bankman-Fried conferred and sensibly decided that they couldn’t miss this opportunity, and that they would deploy FTX customers’ money against it. They’d make a fortune in short order on can’t-lose trades, and pay back the customer funds with interest. Then, oops, they were wrong. This story is bad — none of these stories are going to be good! — but understandable. If you run an opaque business in a lightly regulated industry, and customers trust you with their money, and you use it to make what you think are good bets, and those bets turn out wrong, well, that happens sometimes.
Crypto prices crashed earlier this year, and Alameda was caught out. It lost money and was facing calls from its lenders. Ellison and Bankman-Fried realized that Alameda would go under without help, so they took FTX customer money to prop up Alameda, and gambled on redemption. This story is not so different from the previous one, though it is worse, but also very understandable. It is the typical way these things go, the default assumption for why someone would use customer money. No one wants to fail, no one wants to admit that they lost money, and if there’s a poorly guarded pot of money they can use to paper over losses, sometimes they will.

>>52438469
Here we are in the realm of pure speculation, but you could imagine a number of ways this could have gone:

1. Crypto prices, and firms, crashed earlier this year, and Alameda spotted a huge opportunity. It deployed as much capital as it could into buying great assets at bargain-basement prices. But since there was a crypto winter, it couldn’t deploy all that much capital, and was getting calls from its own lenders. So Ellison and Bankman-Fried conferred and sensibly decided that they couldn’t miss this opportunity, and that they would deploy FTX customers’ money against it. They’d make a fortune in short order on can’t-lose trades, and pay back the customer funds with interest. Then, oops, they were wrong. This story is bad — none of these stories are going to be good! — but understandable. If you run an opaque business in a lightly regulated industry, and customers trust you with their money, and you use it to make what you think are good bets, and those bets turn out wrong, well, that happens sometimes.

2. Crypto prices crashed earlier this year, and Alameda was caught out. It lost money and was facing calls from its lenders. Ellison and Bankman-Fried realized that Alameda would go under without help, so they took FTX customer money to prop up Alameda, and gambled on redemption. This story is not so different from the previous one, though it is worse, but also very understandable. It is the typical way these things go, the default assumption for why someone would use customer money. No one wants to fail, no one wants to admit that they lost money, and if there’s a poorly guarded pot of money they can use to paper over losses, sometimes they will.

>>52438523
3. Crypto prices, and firms, crashed earlier this year, and FTX/Alameda were like “we are in a confidence business, and if we let these firms crash then investors will lose confidence in crypto exchanges, which is bad for our business.” Either in a good, public-spirited, we-want-crypto-to-thrive way, or in a bad, we-need-suckers way, or a bit of both. So they bailed those firms out with customer money. Here is a video of Bankman-Fried and me discussing this possibility at the Bloomberg Crypto Summit in July, in which he said: “The explicit working principle we had” in these bailouts was that “we are incinerating a relatively small-ish amount of money in doing this,” in order to keep the crypto ecosystem healthy. Alameda/FTX was willing to lose money bailing out other firms, if doing so improved confidence in crypto generally. Of course we did not talk about the possibility that FTX was doing this with customer money.

4. Crypto prices, and firms, crashed earlier this year, and FTX/Alameda spotted an opportunity to acquire new customer deposits cheaply and use them for nefarious purposes. Like, you pay zero dollars for the equity of some busted crypto lending platform, you roll the customers over to become FTX customers, you cash out anyone who wants to cash out, you assume that most people will trust FTX (their savior) and not cash out, and then you use their deposits to fund your wild speculations. If FTX/Alameda were already using customer deposits for bad reasons, and losing them, then acquiring more customer deposits would be a way to keep things going. [8]

>>52438058
Fuck off dirty jew

>>52438549
5. FTX/Alameda were funneling customer money into lavish lifestyles for their executives. This one does not seem likely here — they slept on beanbag chairs in the office, etc. — but it is in general a very common explanation of missing customer money, and you’d want some accounting.

6. FTX/Alameda were funneling customer money into effective altruism. Bankman-Fried seems to have generously funded a lot of effective altruism charities, artificial-intelligence and pandemic research, Democratic political candidates, etc. One $500 million entry on the desperation balance sheet is “Anthropic,” a venture investment in an AI safety company. At that same Bloomberg Crypto Summit, I asked Bankman-Fried [9] : “You are sort of in the business of funneling money from people who are going to use it poorly on gambling to, like, animal charities and pandemic preparedness and Joe Biden. Is that too cynical a view, or is that not cynical at all, or what?” My question assumed that FTX and Alameda made a lot of money on fees and spreads from running a crypto exchange and market-maker, so they were legitimately taking money from gamblers and using it for charity. But “not cynical enough” might have been the correct answer. [10]

>>52437975
>Had a good impression on him.
He called FTX a ponzi scheme half a year ago when he was interviewing the filthy jew in his podcast.

>>52437880
it's needed but unfortunately it pits the same crooks in charge but as 'regulators'.

>>52438576
So many other things
Let’s do an FTX lightning round:

1.Due to some combination of the speed of its collapse and the casualness of its accounting and governance, FTX did a “freefall” bankruptcy filing, without any prepared first-day motions or declarations. (Here is the filing.) Ordinarily in a bankruptcy you get, pretty early on, a declaration from some senior officer kind of explaining what went down. Here we are still waiting for that.

2. Customers are, obviously, unhappy — including retail customers of FTX US, a separate entity that was supposed to be insulated from FTX international, but that seems to have “stopped processing withdrawals Friday after the bankruptcy filing.”

3, FTX was also an institutional exchange, and some number of crypto hedge funds seem to have gotten caught with their money trapped at FTX.

4. Withdrawals from FTX.com were mostly shut down as it imploded, but some off-ramps were open. For instance Justin Sun’s Tron blockchain provided a credit facility allowing people to, effectively, withdraw Tron’s tokens from FTX. This led to FTX customers dumping other assets to buy Tron assets so they could get out. If you are a blockchain entrepreneur, “buy my token because even if your exchange collapses you’ll still be able to get your money back” is kind of a good pitch?

>>52438649
5. Another off-ramp is that for a while Bahamas residents could take their money out, “per our Bahamian HQ’s regulation and regulators.” But then the Securities Commission of the Bahamas put out a statement on Saturday saying, no, actually, “the Commission wishes to advise that it has not directed, authorized or suggested to FTX Digital Markets Ltd. the prioritization of withdrawals for Bahamian clients,” and that those withdrawals might be voidable in bankruptcy. Oops?

6. That Bahamas off-ramp led to a weird nonfungible token trade, where Bahamas residents could create NFTs, sell them at absurd markups on FTX to non-Bahamian customers, take out the proceeds and then transfer the proceeds to an outside wallet of the non-Bahamian customer. Here is more from Aleksandar Gilbert at the Defiant. “‘This appears to be the first recorded case of NFT utility in existence,’ crypto influencer Cobie sarcastically tweeted early Friday.”

7. I guess FTX got hacked? “Sam Bankman-Fried’s bankrupt digital-asset exchange FTX was hit by a mysterious outflow of about $662 million in tokens in the past 24 hours,” reported Bloomberg News on Saturday.

>>52438678
8. “FTX’s list of investors spans powerful and well-known investment firms: NEA, IVP, Iconiq Capital, Third Point Ventures, Tiger Global, Altimeter Capital Management, Lux Capital, Mayfield, Insight Partners, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Ribbit Capital, Temasek Holdings, BlackRock and Thoma Bravo.” I suppose FTX is a failure of venture capitalist due diligence, but it’s an odd kind. The usual VC due diligence failure is, like, you back an entrepreneur who promises a futuristic product, and the product doesn’t work. FTX worked fine: People liked its technology, and it seems to have made money. The problem was in its balance sheet, which was full of snakes, and its governance, which put all the snakes there. Ideally the venture capitalists would have spotted that in due diligence, but the typical VC company has a very simple balance sheet and terrible governance, so it is sort of understandable that they sailed right by those problems.

>>52438691
9. “FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried was interviewed by Bahamian police and regulators on Saturday,” obviously. And: “The Bahamian police said they’re working with the Bahamas Securities Commission to investigate whether there was any criminal misconduct in the collapse of the crypto exchange FTX.” And: “The Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office is investigating FTX’s collapse.”

10. “Bankman-Fried’s Cabal of Roommates in the Bahamas Ran His Crypto Empire – and Dated. Other Employees Have Lots of Questions,” was a brisk and informative CoinDesk headline last week.

11. “Big Investors Are Giving Up on Crypto Markets Going Mainstream,” ha.

12. Michael Lewis was somehow there for all of this, and is already selling the movie rights.

13.“Sam Bankman-Fried is not very good at League of Legends,” reports the Financial Times.

Also this is not FTX news but it is funny: “Crypto.com said it recovered almost $400 million in cryptoasset Ether from Asian exchange Gate.io, after it accidentally transferred the funds to the wrong account.” Not now, Crypto.com!

>>52438724
[1] I mean, the entry is “-8,000,000,000.” Below that is an entry for “withdrawals on Sunday” of “5,000,000,000.” These are *bizarrely* round numbers. I suppose that if you’re siphoning off $8 billion to your affiliated trading firm in a hidden account, you might siphon off a round $8 billion, but lots of uncoordinated customer withdrawals are not going to add up to exactly $5 billion even. The point here is that FTX appears to have had no real accounting system for customer withdrawals? Just sort of take a guess and chuck it in an Excel sheet?

[2] There is also a truly nightmarish calculation of “actual leverage” (high) and “perceived leverage” (zero) that I do not ever want to think about. “Perceived leverage”!

[3] CoinDesk reported this weekend: “On Saturday, DeFi protocols across the Solana ecosystem began unplugging from Serum for fear that they didn’t know who wielded control – a concern fueled by the late-Friday hack at FTX. The developers once associated with Serum have gone silent. Meanwhile, the protocol’s dependence on Bankman-Fried and his bankrupt companies Alameda and FTX loomed large.” And The Block reported yesterday: “Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko noted that developers are rushing to fork Serum’s code today and resume the protocol without the involvement of FTX. Developers need another version of Serum because the original can only be updated via a private key that was controlled by someone at FTX and not the Serum DAO. As a result of the FTX hack, that key may have been compromised.”

>>52438751
4] Were those reports true? I don’t think you can really tell one way or the other from the Financial Times’s leaked balance sheet, which seems to be for the FTX/Alameda consolidated group, and which does not exactly follow accounting best practices. But I do think those reports remain plausible; as we will discuss in the next section, the best guess as to where FTX’s customer money went was pretty much to Alameda. “FTX’s Digital Coin Was at Heart of Crypto Exchange’s Fall,” the Wall Street Journal reported today, though “it couldn’t be determined if FTT was used as collateral for the customer loans.”

[5] Also a little bit of rolled-over stock in Elon Musk’s Twitter Inc. deal?

>>52438776
[6] So — if you wanted to do math to these numbers, which I do not recommend — you could sort of reconstruct a rough “before last week” balance sheet that is like $14 billion of customer liabilities, $6 billion of liquid assets, $4 billion of illiquid assets, and $14 billion of FTX-associated tokens, for a total of $24 billion of assets and $10 billion of net equity. (Then you subtract $5 billion from customer liabilities and $5 billion from liquid assets to reflect customer outflows last weekend, and you get the “before this week” numbers in FTX’s spreadsheet.) This reconstructed balance sheet is *less bad* than the one I describe in the text, because it has $6 billion of liquid assets against $14 billion of customer liabilities, which seems like sort of a plausible amount of liquidity for ordinary circumstances. (Versus the $1 billion of liquidity against $9 billion of liabilities in the actual spreadsheet.) But it is still very bad deep down, because you’ve got $10 billion of net equity but $14 billion of that is stuff you made up. If you lose confidence, that all goes to zero and you’re insolvent. (I am exaggerating here by counting Solana tokens in the “stuff you made up,” but that was only about $2.2 billion of the $14 billion, so even if you move it to the “liquid” category the point still holds.)

[7] FTX could have paid *Alameda* for those tokens — or taken those tokens as collateral for loans to Alameda — but as a consolidated-group matter no money flowed out of the system for those tokens.

>>52438790
8] The Petition newsletter today discusses speculation about this possibility, and reports on the fallout from FTX’s implosion for the *other* imploded crypto platforms that FTX/Alameda had agreed to bail out.

[9] See about 31:45 in this video.

[10] See also Byrne Hobart’s post today about Bankman-Fried, utilitarianism, and more-than-full-Kelly betting. You can construct some weird utilitarianism that is like “it is optimal to constantly gamble customer money on crypto bets in order to maximize your chances of stopping a malignant AI from destroying humanity.”

>>52437880
Why don't they just admit they want regulations so you can't get rich and you can't make purchases if you're a racist? As it anyone would do anything about it

>>52438809
This nigga dun wrote a book already.

>>52438817
This level of shenanigan scares off Big Institutional Investment. If Big Investment doesn't want to buy into your funny-money, it will NEVER moon again.
It will just be endless, endless rugpulls and schemery.

>>52438809

u da best, give us more writing

>>52438896
Have the latest on Elon from Levine (he follows Musk's shenanigans like a middle-aged housewife follows soaps).

Oh Elon
Imagine being Elon Musk’s bankers on the Twitter Inc. deal. They have loaned him about $13 billion, which they planned to syndicate to investors, but which they are currently stuck holding. To syndicate that debt, they will need to prepare disclosure materials describing Twitter’s business plans and financial position. How will they do that? Twitter has completely upended its business every few hours over the last two weeks. Musk fired its chief accounting officer. Before the deal closed, Musk went around accusing Twitter of massive fraud, and as far as I know he is still pursuing those claims. He will, with absolutely no prompting, tell anyone who listens that Twitter is at risk of imminent bankruptcy.

>>52438912
What do you say, in the debt offering documents? “Please lend money to this company, which is a fraud and probably bankrupt, but we can’t tell you much about its business plan or financials”? Who would buy that? I mean, probably someone, is the answer; there is some price at which some high-yield investor would be willing to underwrite this mess. That price seems to be roughly 60:

>Wall Street banks that lent $13 billion to help fund Elon Musk’s buyout of Twitter Inc. have been quietly sounding out hedge funds and other asset managers for their interest in a chunk of the buyout debt at deeply discounted prices.

>Some funds have offered to take a piece of the loan package at a discount as low as 60 cents on the dollar, which would be among the steepest markdowns in a decade. The banks have so far deemed those bids unattractive, according to people with knowledge of the discussions who asked not to be identified because the talks were private. …

>Discussions so far have centered around the $6.5 billion leveraged loan portion of the financing, the people said. Banks had seemed unwilling to sell for any price below 70 cents on the dollar, one of the people said.

>>52438912
so Elon is deliberately trying to fuck over the bankers? Based

>>52438936
Even at 70 we are talking about billions of dollars of losses for the banks. But even at 60, like, how do you document that trade? Do you put together offering materials, and run the risk of investors suing you if Musk files for bankruptcy the day after you place the debt? Or do you sell the debt on an as-is basis and make everyone sign a waiver saying, like, “nobody knows what is going on here, we make no promises, and you are buying this stuff at your own risk”? Can you even do that?

Incidentally one natural, extremely funny buyer for this debt would be Musk himself, and I (and others) have half-joked on Twitter that he should just bid the banks 50 cents on the dollar to buy up all the debt. Sure that is throwing good money after bad, but (1) it would save Twitter a lot of interest expense, (2) it would ensure that Musk can own Twitter forever if for some reason he wants that, (3) it’s not throwing away that much more money, compared to what he has already spent and (4) it would be a good troll, which seems to be the main business purpose of this deal. Also the more he talks about bankruptcy the lower the price presumably gets.

Has no affect on Bitcoin

>>52438953
Elsewhere:

>Elon Musk’s aerospace business SpaceX has ordered one of the larger advertising packages available from Twitter, the social media business he just acquired in a $44 billion deal and where he is now serving as CEO.

>The campaign will promote the SpaceX-owned and -operated satellite internet service called Starlink on Twitter in Spain and Australia, according to internal records from the social media business viewed by CNBC.

>The ad campaign SpaceX is buying to promote Starlink is called a Twitter “takeover.” When a company buys one of these packages, they typically spend upwards of $250,000 to put their brand on top of the main Twitter timeline for a full day, according to one current and one former Twitter employee who asked to remain unnamed because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the company.

Sure. And in Delaware today, the trial is starting in a lawsuit about Musk’s compensation plan at Tesla Inc.; for some reason Tesla shareholders seem to think that Musk runs his companies like personal playthings rather than acting as a loyal fiduciary for his outside shareholders.

>>52438947
Elon's plan seems to be to destroy billions in wealth, his, the banks, and shareholders...I guess to express his contempt for the old board of Twitter? For ebin memes? Because he's not sane?

>>52439051
i wouldn't be so quick to assume Musk is simply acting irrationally or that he doesn't have a plan for Twitter

I mean regulations are coming whether you like it or not. The only way you stop something from happening is if you can fight back against it.

Already saw it coming.

>>52439618
>i wouldn't be so quick to assume Musk is simply acting irrationally
Who's being quick? He's fuxored Tesla stock before with memery and shenanigans. He is the Chief Twit with a long history of bullshit.

>>52439659
he doesn't control the price of Tesla stock, the market does. What has he been doing wrong as CEO of Tesla? Sales are improving. Things are looking up. He's weathered every storm so far wrt Tesla. The TSLAQ people have been wrong for nearly a decade. They're like Tether Truthers

My guess is Twitter becoming more successful than ever under Musk

>>52438936
>>52438947

>A number of equity investors such as Sequoia Capital, Binance, and Qatar Investment Authority that controls Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, Qatar Holding, have committed to help the billionaire fund his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter Inc.

Wouldn't syndicating the debt just fuck over his investors?

Yes I hold ROSE and HBAR

>>52437880
ftx proves we need transparent crypto like ren and link now more than ever

>>52437880
I own and use LCX. Regulation and ftx fud does not affect me

>>52438936

why would banks give Elon a loan and them immediately look to syndicate for 60 cents o nth dollar, I don't understand

>>52438953

so he fuds his own company and buys back his own debt at a discount...

>>52437880
FTX is the excuse these fuckers are going to outlaw DAI, which has nothing to with

>>52437880
Spoiler Warren is all talk I wouldn’t worry about it.

>>52437880
Can someone explain it to me like I'm the retard you think I am
What exactly is it that regulations would do to the crypto space and how would the even regulate it?

>>52437880
Are the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HE DONATED TO (You) ALSO SMOKE AND MIRRORS, LIZ???
ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THEM BACK??

>>52438085
So they’re the FED of crypto?

>>52440328
i dunno. maybe they could say if you do business in the US you need independent audits. or proof of reserves. or something. anything. FTX would have been exposed ages ago if there had just been some requirements that someone check and see if they have an inkling of legitimacy

Bullish for XRP

>>52440328
It means you can't buy sell or trade without exposing your identity. The governments can also freeze, track and cut you out of the financial system. its a mark of the Beast system.

>>52438953
it's so easy to say anything now.

>>52439784
>TSLAQ
what does the Q stand for?

>>52440911
>Qanon
Q gets added to the end of bankrupt NASDAQ tickers.

>>52437880
I work for the UN. I have been nominated by WHO to be the cooming regulator of the world.

Cooming regulations (draft Q4 2022):
>none shall coom moar than twice a week.

>>52438228
I appreciate the rant

>>52439654
based

>>52440204
bullish for mim

>>52441524
have to ask, how is HBAR immune from regulations that would shut down Solana or Cardano?

>>52439813

>>52441622
Alameda farmed the shit out of spell and had connections with Dani and Sifu. I am not so sure.

>>52439618
>>52439051
Twitter was a nuisance to him because it was how the US government spread propaganda against SpaceX and Elon personally. If it costs 44 big ones to neutralize that, so be it.

>>52441655
solana - coindesk article:
“Solana Labs filed a Form D with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (a filing saying the sale was of securities exempt from SEC registration), noting the company was selling “the future rights” to around 80 million SOL, according to the filing”.

cardano - thedailyhodl article:
Lawyer (Jemery Hogan) notesthat ADA was first released as an initial coin offering, something he claims is “problematic” in relation to potential SEC lawsuits. Hogan notes, however, that Cardano protected itself with a smart legal maneuver.

hedera shilling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlAgGXhAhGE

>>52437880
as far as i know, basically every movement of funds is required to be reported to the irs beginning next year. so i'm planning on on-ramping as much as i can by eoy and never touching a cex again.

>>52437880
Here's a regulation: The Democrats must repay all the stolen money they received from SBF pilfering user funds. The Democrats owe the users of FTX millions.

>>52437880
>to protect consumers and financial stability
so what am I supposed to say now?
>putin.. I mean.. bankman did it!!! fuck bankman! kanye nigger was right111111

I want a Venetian style patron of my art. You send 5 BTC, I keep writing my novels.

>>52437880
I am preparing a counter to see how long it takes me to explode with c4 when I see my holoclear bags die.

>>52440943
do you think twitter will rebrand (name, etc.)
or he will keep it?
stonk go up ?

>>52443455
The only thing worse than the Twitter brand is changing it. It would be akin to starting over.

>>52443497
>Twatter

>>52438892
>This level of shenanigan scares off Big Institutional Investment. If Big Investment doesn't want to buy into your funny-money, it will NEVER moon again. It will just be endless, endless rugpulls and schemery.
false. regulation does not mean rugpulls and schemes will stop to exist all regulation will do is serve those who already have plenty of money meanwhile all the retail investors like you and me will get squeezed out as the volatility and opportunity drop. appreciated everything you have said except this point though, you seem to have a pretty balanced outlook on the entire situation

>>52437880
"Prepared"? I called it for fucking years.

Fuck crypto, fuck lolberts.

>>52437880
Piss off faggot.
XMR has its own containment zone.

>>52437880
All in a non-custodial wallets with a single login through ore id. Let it come

>>52443925
>Fuck crypto
Until it goes mainstream and you realize how retarded you are

>>52437880
I hope the regulators are not retards to make it up at the expense of privacy

>>52437880
it's gonna happen alright. but that would actually be a boost for payment/micropayment solutions like coti and geeq. increasing regulation would probably lead to increasing adoption, and acceptance of crypto as a viable payment alternative.

>>52438086
maybe all is not lost yet. some layer zeros are already building some ironclad payment systems that could retain privacy and decentralization. the coming years could just be very interesting.

>>52444819
Crypto actually need regulations but not at the expense of innovation I'm seeing from blockchain tec and freedom sadly recent events has set it backwards

The only ecosystem I'm using right now is Bspin. coz:

>Strong casino with a Bitcoin as the playing currency.
>Coming giveaway with $15K Prize Pool.
>Huge amount of games, slots, LIVE, spins etc

>>52444856
Layer 0 might be the next trend for blockchains from what I've seen since the protocols solves the limitations of Layer 1 blockchains

>>52444985
layer zero so you mean coins like bitcoin which we already have so we back to square 1 is what you are telling me? might as well just put it in digecoin then if we just keep going around in circles with this technology scaling bullshit

>>52437880
>Regulations heckin badarino!
No, retard, preventing scammers and scams is what will give crypto legitimacy in the eyes of big investors.

>>52437880
All on-chain, nothing in stables. Come at me faggots

>>52445248
You're repeating a narrative created by people who don't just want you broke, they want you dead. That's why goyim never get anywhere in life

>>52445239
I'm talking about Polkadot Horizen, cosmos and a new one Geeq and you can run node and build your chain on their ecosystem

>>52437880
I hope games won't be affected much though.

imagine being an amerinigger

>>52437880
Cryplets are a danger to society and themselves
Training wheels go back on

>>52445248
With the high BFT that certain blockchain projects use, I don't believe scam is possible. I'm referring to hybrid blockchains. You may dyor.

>>52445288
a chain for what to where? isnt this called just forking a coin which is something we have already been doing for 10 years now

>>52444932
there's no way things can continue this way without the government wading into it. so many fintechs had their money in FTX. now they're all going under.

>>52445311
eth comes with a bft of 46%. geeq is at 99%. and the highest bft for PoS is 55% or thereabouts. make of this what you will.

>>52438086
Thank the bankman, not me.

>>52445296
If you don't want any regulations, I suggest a ps5. kek

>>52445296
I've not really enjoyed any p2e, gamestarplus is supposed to give me a fucking experience but they are caught up with the market I guess.

>>52437880
All talk no action from this whore

>>52445455
Very closed centralized ecosystem, I think in the long run, their in-game assets will be tokenized and moved to the blockchain.

>>52445530
elizabeth whoren

>>52437880
"You guys are preparing for the upcoming crypto regulations, right?"

YOU HUCK I WILL NOT SELL

>>52445239
layer-0 is social consensus bitcoin is layer-1 lightning and sidechains are layer-2 shitcoins are not a layer they are a distraction.

Jeez, you're stupid af! Try Bspin. its easy even for ya.
>Online Casino with BTC main currency.
>Players deposit, play and withdraw Bitcoin without any additional conversion.
>Many different deposit methods

>>52437880
>upcoming crypto regulations

Already got my ID onchain through TIDV that went live last week. Aside that, still freezing here cus the SEC might trample hard on us.

didn't read

>>52446752
Based

>>52445521
This game is always fun for game night.

>>52438039
>oof, is that a tornado cash dust in your wallet? yikes, I guess you'll have to code your own defi frontends now

>>52444294
you mean something like SID? do you have it in USA?

>>52438273
Fuck off
Everyone left of Hitler should hang.
And he did plenty wrong too.

>>52445296
Games are meant for fun. Just enjoy playing them. I like board games and gamenight.

>>52437880
thr copy pasted binancelogo in that pic, fucking kek

>>52437880
Hard time for the crypto space. Just sit back with family at this time and play games.

I don't think regulations via congress are going to happen before 2024 and the change in the white house. There are a couple of bills worth watching, (H.R.4741 and S.4760) but they probably won't get much traction.

>Representative Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee told an audience of crypto miners at an event in Round Rock, Texas, on Oct. 5, “… The White House is telling Congress they don’t need us to do anything regarding legislation for digital assets at this time.” Manuel Ortiz, a Democratic strategist close to the White House and founder and president of lobbying firm Vantage Knight, agreed with Sessions’ assessment of the administration’s position. “It was clear from the beginning that the tail wasn’t going to wag the dog, that digital asset technology wasn’t going to limit what the U.S. government is required to do under the law.” According to Ortiz, the White House has determined that the majority of the regulatory framework for digital assets was already covered under existing laws and a strategy of having regulators conduct enforcement actions would reel the industry in slowly to the executive branch’s approach.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/16/fact-sheet-white-house-releases-first-ever-comprehensive-framework-for-responsible-development-of-digital-assets/

>>52437975
>Bloomberg

>>52447349
Hard times over.
Whales fight over
Midterms over
ICP report gone
TIDV and other regulatory products gone live waiting for SEC with their regulations... Cryto Biz remaineth forever.

>>52438156
someone post the "fund black markets" meme

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-11-15/banking-giants-and-new-york-fed-start-12-week-digital-dollar-pilot

>NEW YORK (Reuters) - Global banking giants are starting a 12-week digital dollar pilot with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the participants announced on Tuesday.
>Citigroup Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc, Mastercard Inc and Wells Fargo & Co are among the financial companies participating in the experiment alongside the New York Fed's innovation center, they said in a statement. The project, which is called the regulated liability network, will be conducted in a test environment and use simulated data, the New York Fed said.
>The pilot will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.
>Earlier this month, Michelle Neal, head of the New York Fed's market's group, said it sees promise in using a central bank digital dollar to speed up settlement time in currency markets.

What does this mean?

All my money is on Vinu and Monero. These fuck faces will rip my wealth away from me with fucking metal pincers before I comply.

>>52450547
do you have this >>52449932

>>52437880
Most effective way to clean up the financial markets with regulation is to ban all Jews from them. Fraud, scam, insider trading, paid politicians, paid regulators, ponzi schemes etc would fall 90% immediately.

>>52437975
Just subscribe it gets around the paywall.
To date he's the only person i've read who knows what goes on in a trading floor, evryone else talks domplete shit.
Theres a certain mindset and smart arse fuck you attitude needed to survive a dealing room.
He cuts the elite speak and calls 'large' corporate deals for what they are, a buy or a sell.

His comments about Serum and Solana....kek

>>52438039
You used to be able to buy crypto by just buying some as you'd buy something from an online shop. You just paid money and got some coin sent to your address. It was simple, easy, safe. Didn't even need an account or anything. Regulations ruined this.

>>52437880
i keep stacking moneros yea

>>52437880
She's certainly an expert on fraud, since she is one herself.

>>52437880
YAASSSS QUEEN ELIZABETH!! PLEASE PROTECT US FROM USING PLATFORMS THAT DONATE OUR MONEY TO DEMOCRATS!!

>>52447349
Well a lot of organisations have been against crypto for years anon, this looks like a hard reset and the regulations might come before we go up again. However this has also brought about the most cheapest levels for some crypto assets

>>52454079
Not bad anon. I have a decent stash of Xmr, I also added Dune and Sylo for the long term