It's being debated in the bankruptcy court. Some creditors want to sell it off and others want to let it ride. Because this is crypto, some people want to issue a crypto token that represents claims on the estate.
What could possibly go wrong? :D
Say the Marvels is coming out, Brie Larson knows everyone hates her and she's a bad actor so it will probably flop. Brie takes out a $10 million short on her own movie.
Now she has an incentive to be horrible so she acts EXTRA bad and treats people even worse than usual to be sure it flops.
but it’s a moot point because centralized exchanges like coinbase offer a valuable service of solving a lot of the issues with crypto ux
So now the coin is defacto owned by FTX, not the customer.
Similar to what does not happen when you buy ATT stock in your Schwab account.
Generally only worth it if you intend to hold your stock for some time (which you should)
Others will let you send a cheque and buy more. Informal communities exist to buy that first share from another individual so you can continue.
Sometimes all at no charge. Was handier back when brokerage commissions were a thing (and a lot higher).
Did this with GE a while ago (worked out for me!)
When you put things (e.g., stock) in a “custodial account” with a company like Charles Schwab or similar, if they enter BK then your property is separate from the bankruptcy estate and must be returned to you, in theory.
FTX seems to have combined all the best features of all systems: because they had custody of the tokens, they were able to actually lose them; when they entered bankruptcy, the customer assets could not go to the secured creditors (to the extent that they were custodial, not debt) and they couldn’t go to the customer either (because “not your keys, not your crypto”).
Cherry on top: no FDIC protection. The only winner is the criminal, who is free (for a while) to use customer funds to pay Tom Brady to be his friend.
“Free from the banks,” indeed.
It's one thing for Google etc to invest billions in cash and cloud services[1] into Anthropic with the understanding that money will be used for engineering and growth.
It's quite different for any buyer to come in and spend $4B on the secondary market for nothing but shares, with none of that money going to Anthropic.
There is a large appetite for exposure to the big AI companies, so maybe the demand is there. But it's not as simple as selling a large stock holding on the public market.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/google-invests-2-billion-an...
There are tons of big private equity funds and several trillion-dollar fund managers for which buying a 10% stake of a privately held 30 billion dollar startup would just be a question of some paperwork.
This sounds like a loophole, and now that I think if it it probably is - VCs and stuff should not have been allowed to ask for money from pension funds without imposing at least some rules normally applied to public companies.