While I agree with most of this, keeping a small number of things secure for yourself is far easier than doing it for thousands/millions of accounts in an automated way. That's true of almost everything in software. For instance, just because I know how to use a password manager doesn't mean it's easy to get my whole family using a password manager. They were clearly dysfunctional and there may be some of this at play but Occam's Razor says it was just easier to store less securely.
I think that is what is so hilarious about the situation. The US is forever creating situations where companies want to be first in and fastest scaling at any cost, offering free everything to begin.
If they were a bank they would realize their growth is beyond their competence and bring in boring big bank security experts with some of the huge profits on the even more massive holdings.. But there were no legal profits on holding all these assets because they promised to be something better than a bank, making its money from risking your assets, so that was just done illegally leaving no above the table accounts for legitimate operation costs. (A friend of SBF with an illegal loan will obviously keep your keys safe.)
How could an honest company that takes negligence seriously compete? It is like the opposite of regulations as barrier to entry. How do you sell things for less than the Mafia's laundering operation?
> While I agree with most of this, keeping a small number of things secure for yourself is far easier than doing it for thousands/millions of accounts in an automated way.
Of course, but the qualifier I used is "make a case".
Obviously, nobody can ever read SBF's mind, but the government might have enough to prosecute him from this angle if they could prove that he knew better from his behavior with his own holdings, but didn't do things in a certain way for FTX's holdings.
