If I was someone else with access to that wallet, I could easily see waiting until SBF is out on bail and then moving funds to make everyone think it's him.
On the flip side, if it was SBF, he maybe could have done it before. Martin Shrekli has stated how he did blockchain operations from a contraband cellphone while in jail.
Systems that enable the freezing of assets of alleged criminals are fail-deadly, because they enable universal systemwide veto of any participant or transaction by whoever can exercise the ability to freeze funds.
If you don't like fail-safe systems like cryptocurrency, you can of course keep your money in a normal, regulated bank, where it is "safe" (except from point-and-click seizure, civil asset forfeiture, bank errors, bank discretion, unfounded/imaginary tax warrants, malicious prosecution, etc).
My point is that while I agree with the risks you imply with traditional finance, the crypto we have today has not fixed the issues in traditional finance and has introduced many new ones. Hard to calculate but it feels like a net loss in my book.
Feels like a far cry from the “fail safe” you mention. Yeah it’s a fail safe from a government intervening in your financial affairs, but it’s also a fail safe from them protecting you by intervening in others. It’s the opposite of collective action. It’s every human for themself. This is not an improvement.
Engineering is trade-offs.
Personally I prefer my money to be immune from collective action, given that it's personal funds and not collective money.
> Hard to calculate but it feels like a net loss in my book.
It is very nice then that nobody is required to use cryptocurrency for any reason if they don't want to. Everyone who holds cryptocurrency has explicitly opted in to those benefits and risks.
I wish I could say the same about US retail/consumer banking. I would abandon those criminals in an instant if it were possible. Unfortunately, everyone is opted into an unsafe system against their will, with no recourse.
> It is very nice then that nobody is required to use cryptocurrency for any reason if they don't want to. Everyone who holds cryptocurrency has explicitly opted in to those benefits and risks.
There’s an internal inconsistency in your logic between these two statements.
Money is collective action. It is others controlling you and you controlling others. You cannot have one without the other.
What you’re likely advocating for is a world without politics, where corrupt institutions are replaced by machines/systems that are pure and non-corruptible.
This is the crypto dream, but it’s older then crypto. Ayn Rand is often credited with this thinking. Also, somewhat ironically, the corrupt financial system of today (including 08 crisis) is in many ways more corrupt because it was infused with this thinking in the wave of deregulation in the 90s.
For a great history on this belief system I recommend the documentary “All watched over by machines of loving grace” by Adam Curtis.