My god, it's like the blueprint to a Ponzi scheme
In the Sequoia article, SBF gained his initial funding for FTX from executing trades from the US to Japan, where BTC was overpriced because no one bothered to arbitrage it because of the setup difficulty. The way he did this was by contacting a friend to open a bank account in Japan and manage the funding over there while he managed the account US side.
I am sure some of it is normal corporate shell game but I'd imagine at least 50% of this setup was for regulatory purposes. Even small fintechs will have "shell game like" company structure to please regulatory forces that require having certain things be independent from the consumer platform even if the two companies are working towards the same goal.
So SBF having been in finance before (Jane Street), he knew where the footsteps were and how to do it vs a fly-by night crypto investor with no finance background.
When that “arbitrage” turned out to be really lucrative one of the founders of Skype (Talinn something) gave SBF a $50 million loan. SBF and that Talinn guy knew each other also from that Effective Altruism sect-like thing.
All this info was part of a Sequoia congratulatory piece on SBF, they of course had also given him money. The article has since been taken down, it’s still reachable through Web Archive.
I've skimmed through it, and by god, I was surprised Sequoia wasn't crediting the sun rising each morning to SBF.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/sam-bankm...
)
> Matt: (27:13)
> I think of myself as like a fairly cynical person. And that was so much more cynical than how I would've described farming. You're just like, well, I'm in the Ponzi business and it's pretty good.
I seriously cannot understand how after this interview Sam still had any kind of support from VCs and so on.
I hope the late 2010s-early 2020s will be remembered as the dot-com era of extremely dumb money...
Because they thought they could make money by finding a bigger fool, or by finding someone who thought they could find an even bigger fool.
$10B "somehow" "gone" is QED that someone did find their marks.
More interesting is how none of these guys are seeing the inside of a jail and doing the jailhouse orgies. I wonder if 'defenestration' will become a meme in crypto world too.
yes you do - because they're at best amoral and know their position and connections means they can make money out of shit like this by ensuring there's a series of bigger fools waiting to buy them out.
:)
I'm just reacting to the idea that you'd need to see the SBF corporations laid out on a diagram to reach the conclusion. When Carrell's character says "they aren't confessing, they're bragging", he's talking about an allusion. The Ponzi schemes here are not allusive. SBF literally bragged about them.
"SBF/Matt Levine said it" does not automatically make it true.
Instead of debating semantics, enlighten us with how/why they are using it incorrectly and what you mean by this being a pump and dump and not a Ponzi. To me it definitely looks like a Ponzi: money from new entrants in the system go to pay off earlier entrants, a pump and dump from what I know would require SBF/FTX pumping up FTT to then dump it all leaving bag holders in the wake of the crash.
Ponzi scheme: Taking later entrants' investments to pay earlier investors on the false pretense that the venture's activity generated the returns.
pump-and-dump: Duping others into thinking an asset has value so that it can be resold above its legit worth.
The original description given clearly fits pump-and-dump better[1], since it's based on making an asset seem valuable:
>>laid the Ponzi scheme straight out: scammers make boxes that pay fake coins when you store your money in them, they put so much money into the boxes that the fake coins seem valuable, then they rug pull everyone and move on to the next one.
For tptacek's part, he could have defended his claim by presenting a substantive understanding of the distinction and justified the label in his own words. Or, somehow indicated this was a point of contention at all. Or done anything whatsoever beyond arguing, in effect, "the perp used the label, therefore it must be accurate". That does not advance the discussion, or indicate a prompt for the kind of contribution in the first half of this comment.
It fits perfectly