There's definitely a pattern, but I don't want to assume motive. I doubt SBF will get his retrial, but still, it's good PR for a lot of people -- for Effective Altruism, for Stanford, for Sequoia -- whose reputations took a hit here. It's even good PR for the bankruptcy team to say that they got full restitution. And for the journalists, of course, it's a headline that really pops.
But sitting here, we can't really know why we're being lied to. All we can do is take note of the lies, and of who's repeating them.
Or, it's just kinda and interesting story on it's own, no crazy conspiracy theories needed?
When Bernie Madoff or Enron or any of the other major headline-grabbing frauds fell apart, the victims generally got back almost nothing. The fact that FTX is returning all of the user's money, plus interest, is quite unique and newsworthy.
Madoff is kinda like an FTX: on average, everyone has received 72% of their “investment” back. But there was some rule about everyone getting their first $1m or something back 100%.
Where madoff is a bit different is that they were more aggressive in taking money back that people took out. You’re really only getting back what you put in (and obvious losses through time value of money).
And madoff didn’t gamble with the money, he mostly just sat on it.
"That said, the repayments do exceed expectations. That is newsworthy. I just wish they could report that news factually."
So to flip it back on you: repaying the lowball marks, but not the actual full stolen value, is an interesting story on its own. No lies and exaggerations from the media are needed.
Also, where you write:
> "The fact that FTX is returning all of the user's money..."
No. This is not a "fact". This is a lie. You have been misinformed. That's my whole point. Do not call it a fact.
You are correct. As phrased, this headline and large parts of the article are fake news. The first sentence about "profiting from the money they put into the exchange" is particularly egregious. Nobody was putting money into the exchange when withdrawals were frozen, which is when these marks are from.
The reference amount that's being "repaid" is a low quote from near the bottom of the crash. Nobody signed up for this correlation between (1) crypto price crash and (2) the exchange halting withdrawals. It was a straight-up theft of optionality.
That said, the repayments do exceed expectations. That is newsworthy. I just wish they could report that news factually.
That is an excellent quote, thanks for sharing it. But I'm not sure why he told us the exact date of detonation. Wasn't he supposed to be the master of suspense?
For the joke to work, the listener needs to picture a highly advanced, evolved civilization far in the future. Saying a big number gives the imagination a concrete starting point. Like a writing prompt.
The date of intended detonation is very much not going to be the actual date anything explodes with how stable our bomb chemistry is over long intervals.
The bible says that no one knows the day or the hour of the apocalypse. But plenty of christians are eager to tell you the week or the minute! It's been on my mind lately due to several billboards in my area pointing to october9th.com
Mormons be hoarding all the wealth and supplies just in case it is sometime soon. Jesus would be real mad if he came back and they only had a measly 5 billion.
This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate.
This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.
worse.. a first-hand quote from inside a California Senate committee hearing chamber.. "Don't speak it if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink" .. translated, that means that in a contentious situation with others in the room, if allies can signal without speaking the words out loud, that is better.. and if the signal can be hidden, better still.
This is an old saying in politics and you're misinterpreting it - it's not about signaling to allies, it's about avoiding being held to any particular positions.
You're also missing the first half, "don't write if you can speak, don't speak if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink." The point is not to commit to anything if you don't have to.
There are enough wildly different conspiracy theories around these events that I genuinely have no inkling of a clue what you mean. Which big picture are we supposed to see, and what's the relation to 35 years?
Oh okay, yes I see your point and it's a sensible one. Not conspiratorial, sorry if I insinuated that.
The sentences are still all at the low range of what I'd like to see, and it's fine for people to quibble about the relative treatment & how much the cooperation should count for, but yeah, the total is useful context for perspective here.
But sitting here, we can't really know why we're being lied to. All we can do is take note of the lies, and of who's repeating them.
reply