It's hard to name any crypto organization that was seen as more reputable than FTX before this happened.
If we can't even trust someone with SBF's track record, what's left?
The guy showed up out of nowhere... suddenly being promoted by throwaway reddit accounts, claiming to have made more than ten billion on trades where claiming a million dollar payoff would have been surprising and dubious.
Their exchange specialized in offering almost anonymous retail traders access to leveraged trading on the most dubious of cryptocurrencies stuff popular exchanges won't carry and they carry a lot of bullshit. They even had varrious weirdo products 'index funds' including one called 'shitcoin index'.
When FTX acquired a derivatives clearing house I used, I pulled 95% of my account value out right away. I also warned my friends to stay away from FTX or anything related when I had the chance-- which wasn't often because it wasn't something most bitcoiners I encountered were particularly aware of (as mentioned, their service was more of a casino than an exchange-- big leverage for the most volitile crap).
So while I get how people that might have been in the right media bubbles might have thought it was reputable... but generally? Not a chance, at least not from my perspective.
Was the media critical? No-- there are reports that negative stories about SBF and FTX were actively suppressed in some newsrooms and it's already the case that scamcoiners are actively suing people who criticize them, so that's a big incentive to say nothing when you see a fraud.
Countless charlatans have run confidence scams (cons) in the crypto space, accuring money and attention around a centralized platform, in a tech area predicated on decentralized technology.
Living through the MtGox era, watching the corners of the Internet refer to the incident for a decade and then the Shocked Pikachu faces now? I just can't.
I don't care about crypto and "the masses". I invest in things I understand, and it hasn't _burnt_ me yet. I understand crypto and it's unique value prop and it sure as hell doesn't involve investing in or putting my money into a centralized platform. And certainly not one run by the blessed-ilk of Wall Street.
Once again, ever so slight skepticism for the win. It's truly unbelievable the irrationality people engage in when they think they're in on something even when they don't actually understand it!
"The line goes up" is a cautionary tale, and yet I think some folks really missed the whole middle section talking about the psychology that the vultures (NFT, centralized exchanges, etc) are preying upon when chasing explosive growth (or riches, on the other side of the equation).
> and smart contracts don't replace the need for social trust.
idk, a (still relatively) fat stack of crypto sitting on my Ledger would disagree.
A bad actor can steal the voting tokens, and decide the vote. Even without that, I can't assume that the voters are aligned to my interests
Right, but all those attacks are harder to pull off and more visible than what the parent implied (ie. someone can unilaterally make changes without anyone finding out). Like I said in my previous comment, there are many issues with smart contracts, but the objection raised by OP is just really badly conceived.
>Even without that, I can't assume that the voters are aligned to my interests
This seems like an impossible demand to me. What type of system (democratic/non-democratic, crypto/non-crypto) ensures that the decision made will always align with everyone's interests?