Hacker News Reader

Comment by thallium205 | Hacker News Reader

It says right in the article SBF did it himself because the government asked him to after declaring bankruptcy.

The article seems to hint that the Delaware bankruptcy case might be complicated by the Bahamian regulator's New York bankruptcy case. It looks like they're implying collusion beteen SBF and the Bahamian regulator.

(sorry, replying to self)

I have to say I find the idea of a "Bahamian regulator" amusing, or at least ironic. People don't put their wealth and companies in the Bahamas because of their reputation for excellent regulation.

But they might if, apart from turning a blind eye to many things, the same regulator might be prevailed on to collude in seizing/preventing other seizure of their assets (by less favorable jurisdictions), for uh "safekeeping" under Bahamian 'justice'... of course.

The ol' wrench attach

I assume it's to get their bribe money before anyone else had a chance.

Propably not, the Bahamas have a financial safe haven reputation to preserve.

SBF publicly lied about this and called it a hack. If it was all aboveboard why would he have done that?

You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.

Sure, but that’s just handwaving away the question. He made an effort to reach out to a journalist and reinforced the hack narrative.

He’s rational, he’s just using a different set of ethics.

In the Vox interview he says he’s trying to win a jurisdictional battle with Delaware, this just part of that fight.

Something I've been thinking about WRT SBF and online ethics, is if someone's true devotion is to preserving shareholder value, etc, if you know "interesting things" have happened and been covered up for a long time, lying on twitter to people who mostly are uninvolved and don't care, might be seen as a legal obligation, not a character flaw.

He had an "out" which was the companies business model was to purchase regulations from politicians intended to put all his competitors out of business, that process seemed to be going VERY well, and if he could have held out another half year, maybe two years... he likely would have been very successful. So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors.

Certainly his investors would have made more money if he hadn't gotten caught than how it turned out, and being a criminal organization he can't be honest about that on Twitter.

There is no reason to believe FTX was going to succeed via regulatory capture. SBF wasn’t a rational thinker. The establishment sucks but it doesn’t mean SBF was competent and had a realistic out. He didn’t. He is an out of control sociopath.

> So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors.

Please point me to this law.

Because he is a liar and a con-artist?

That "interview" that he's been trying to walk back ever since, seems more like the work of a sociopath attempting to change the public narrative. Instead of people talking about all the fraud, he's hoping they'll be arguing about if he's actually woke or fake woke.

Did SBF ever say it was a hack? I only saw admins on telegram call it a hack and ftx's US general counsel say it was a hack[1].

[1] second paragraph here: https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/

He did. He directly said it was a hack in an interview with Vox.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...

oh, missed that. thanks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com