gist

This page: https://web.archive.org/web/20211201212024/https://www.gemin...

Now I will note that on that page it does say this:

"Gemini is partnering with accredited third party borrowers including Genesis, who are vetted through a risk management framework which reviews our partners’ collateralization management process. Additionally, on a periodic basis we will conduct an analysis of our partners’ cash flow, balance sheet, and financial statements to ensure the appropriate risk ratios and healthy financial condition of our partners."

But the thing is this. There is literally no way to prevent against outright fraud of a counter party. (See the Crazy Eddie story where they were shifting inventory from store to store when they were being audited).

Look one thing I will tell you here let's call it 'the bottom line'. I am an old timer. And I right off saw crypto involved risk and as such I did not either make or lose any money on crypto. As an again 'old timer' it just didn't make sense to me. I would have never gone down this road because being around for so many years right off it had the potential for issues. Plus again there is always counterparty risk.

You are insinuating physical violence (I will assume) which is never acceptable.

And in your case you made a mistake ie

'I put a chunk of money in there'

and further SBF had no control over this: 'because this all unfolded right after I got fired from my last job, when I really needed my liquid money to pay for things like "my mortgage" and "food".'

The takeaway for others is events happen in life. Could be someone's fault could be nobody's fault.

Having all your eggs (or no eggs) in one basket can and does lead often to disaster.

Sorry for the harsh way of putting this. What you are indicating is that you had no cushion and made the mistake of being lured by a high return and ignored potentially any downsides. (Gemini is not and did not claim to be an FDIC insured bank. Also crypto can and does lose value unlike money in a bank. Even if you had been able to get 7% return if crypto loses value you lose money. Same as or similar to a dividend paying stock).

Unfortunately that is not possible. And yes if you don't have money (for any reason (ie bad luck, wrong family upbringing endless list) you often get the short end of the stick.

Noting also that I am almost certain that nobody making a comment has read much about this case other than small parts of it and assuming that in the end the right thing is not happening here. The fact that the attorney general and the Governor think it should not happen doesn't mean it should not happen (as you don't fully know their thinking or their motivations).

Bottom line: Money does not grow on trees. There are resources and not everyone will get a fair shake (when skill is involved).

I was watching something on TV other night (Dateline or 2020 or like that network) and some family was not happy because a murderer was offered a plea deal. They just did not understand why there would not be a trial they wanted to see the best possible bad outcome for the person who murdered their family member. Sure that is fine but resources unfortunately and money means that prosecutors often (again for the greater good) have to cut deals. So no it's not all about your pain and your situation 'money does not go on trees'. (And the fact that they for other reasons might fight another case doesn't change that ie 'life is not always fair').

Easy for people on the sideline reading to be idealistic about how things should work.

Even if they don't show up and get a judgement they can then appeal or do many things to stop the enforcement process.

Also nothing to prevent an opponent for whatever reason finding a way to file a counterclaim to which you would then need to defend against and probably pay a lawyer to handle. (Meaning not in small claims court or above your knowledge level). Related note also that LLC's and Inc. must typically be represented by an attorney in court.

I found a very interesting paradox from doing a fair amount of small claims cases many years ago.

Basically if we were right (we were the company making the claim and should have been paid) the defendant lied and we lost. However if we were wrong (ie the claimant was right had a valid defense to not paying) we typically won (because they were honest and we could exploit and dance around what they were saying.

The Ivy League is talked about and well known all over and public knowledge your neighbor your aunt, your wife, your mother, the guy who owns the local bakery etc. It's an international brand.

YC known in the startup community. Most likely the guy who runs the local 200 person wholesale operation wouldn't even know about it unless he read about it in the WSJ he reads print edition. Go to sell to that company and they will say HUH what's that mean 'YC'.

I always find it laughable (sorry not directed at you in particular) when people make that type of comparison. Probability of something occurring for unrelated events ... why in the world does that matter at all? I could say it's harder to get accepted to a certain health club than Harvard or YC.

I am reminded of a restaurant in my city that opened and the local press talked about how hard it was to get a reservation. In fact this particular chef decided to open that restaurant both because he didn't have any experience and also the fact that it had a limited amount of tables would always make it seem more valuable in some way than it was. 'So hard to get a table harder than WONDERFUL RESTAURANT IN SAME CITY where it's hard to get a reservation HARDER THAN THAT EVEN!' Additional point in that restaurant was it took over the location (another PR win) of an old established and very famous restaurant in the same city. The press ate that up as a story angle. As if it mattered at all. It didn't only it made a good story angle. Otherwise why should it make any difference at all?

That could easily be a coincidence. For one thing you don't know about all the domains that were searched for that were not registered by the registrar. Only the ones you searched for (which could very easily be registered for another reason meaning there was another signal indicating their desirability and you even said 'and came up with some great ones only to find').

> Do a Google search on Namecheap frontrunning and you’ll find tons of posts of people talking about how it happened to them.

Is this really the way you think? You do a search and if people are reporting a certain 'symptom' well it must be correct. An anecdote. I drank coffee this morning and XYZ happened wow 'many' people had the same experience!

> If you don’t want to lose that great domain name, never search anywhere except Google or Amazon domains.

As others have pointed out you can also just search from the command line using whois. Not sure why you think that Google or Amazon are super safe either. Amazon runs many domains through gandi.net. Either of them have their own downside. At least at Namecheap you can actually last I checked get in touch with the CEO or an actual employee.

However it is not unscrupulous. Business and making money in this way is not unscrupulous. There is nothing to guarantee also that if the domain were not taken by a registrar it would be available to purchase at a nominal registration cost. It might not be for sale at any price.

> It would be illegal if domains were a regulated market.

Why does that matter. It's not a regulated market. That's like saying 'if it was illegal it would be illegal'.

> Domain searches are not public info.

There is nothing to indicate other than someone says something on reddit that the registrar front runned (what is being implied) even happened. As typical someone says something and everyone assumes all the facts are correct (ie someone searches and registrar says 'oh I will now grab that domain someone wants it!'.)

> Domain expiry maybe, depending on how the expiry is handled (open auction where registrar bids vs registrar getting a unfair advantage and buying the domain before it becomes accessible to anyone else

Except we don't know that is what happened here.

'Make a profit'. God forbid a business does something to 'make a profit'.

Entirely unclear why people seem to believe that domain names are something of a public trust and should go by different rules than any other object or item a private company can profit from. I've noted this attitude literally since the 1990's with public comments about domain names or registrars.

There is nothing at all wrong, illegal or unscrupulous with a domain name registrar - if a domain is not paid for by their customer - with the registrar holding that domain to auction it or sell to another party.

And in fact many if not most registrars do a version of this (Godaddy as only one example). ICANN allows this as long as the contract that the customer signed or says has this possibility pointed out. ICANN does require domains that are not paid for deleted but doesn't prevent a registrar from deleting the domain from the customer account and then taking possession of the domain in order to resell it. (Prior info refers to .com .net .org .info and other common tld's).

How about 'let's get him back alive'. If that had not happened there quite likely would have been no program or a big delay in the program.

The writer (as is typical looks at upside not downside of attention to certain details) is predictably glib with that as if 'geez why wouldn't they thought pictures were important!'

Also in addition to what others have said about $40 and today's cost the modifications and time for that were not factored into the actual value of the camera.

Other than generally Amazon doing layoffs my guess is interest in equipment that they talk about has dropped greatly and specifically because of smartphone cameras (Iphone in particular in my case). I have an expensive Sony Camera (several thousand for the body with a $2000 lens and other lenses) and haven't used it in years. I just use the Iphone. And I am someone that had a darkroom years ago and really enjoyed photography (and made money selling pictures even). It was a big deal to me to take pictures. But it was more exclusive since most people didn't have a professional camera.

Photography has changed in the sense that back when I did and enjoyed it there weren't any digital aids or easy ways to make pictures look good. Or be able to just take as many pictures as you wanted in all sorts of light conditions. And that was actually part of the fun for me. I mean even my Sony camera can't fix pictures like the iphone can on the fly.

The iphone (I've had all of them now an iphone 14 pro max is what I use) is just good enough to provide enjoyment.

(Some nice video on home page)

While that story is often repeated it sounds for sure apocryphal. A bunch of men from that day and age couldn't have figured out how to get out of that room? Or simply revolted and freaked out? Now maybe he feigned doing that or maybe he actually did 'lock the door' but so what? The story and legend value is just to much to ignore. It's almost certainly greatly exaggerated or not even close to being true. People can't even agree on news that happened in this day and age let alone the golden era of back in the day newspaper exaggeration.

In any case the 'lock' might have been some other leverage he used over the players that wouldn't make sense to the general public or make a good news story.

https://domaininvesting.com/ai-com-forwarding-chatgpt/

Maybe the purpose of $250m is to get attention not to mean anything more than $5m (considering if he skips they are not collecting $250m

It's an interesting story. Your comment reminds me of one time when PG (when he used to comment) parent-ally said 'now you should all get back to work'.

> The bail situation with SBF is the least interesting thing about the case.

Thank you informing what you think others should find interesting. Sounds like a movie critic deciding whether a certain movie should be entertaining or not (based on what they personally admire or find interesting). Flash purpose of a movie (and a news story) is to sell tickets and advertising ... generally by holding people's interest.

> By all means, dunk on the people making insurance payments to cover his bail! It's a weird thing to decide to do!

Thanks for your approval of what others find interesting. Of all places on HN where you have more points (redeemable for NOTHING) than anyone. Weird?

For whatever reason this reminded me of something (and I don't have the exact quote) that Steve Jobs apparently said about Wozniak and a (again iirc) a basic compiler that Apple needed (maybe in discussion with Microsoft?).

'If we need one Woz can write that over the weekend'.

Point is amazing that they are spending $15m to just put together a task force and a report to analyze the idea.

(How many on HN remember the quote that I am referring to I was not able to easily find it).

Gross? So we have a company that is in business to make money and employs people and spends money at other companies (that employ and give people jobs). And they can't do obvious marketing. And take advantage of a good opportunity to plug their product? Everybody and every company just has to be for the common good? Be humble no bragging and the world will be a path to your door?

I would like to know where writing such as this is taught. Everyone knows what '52 years' is there is no reason to embellish it in that way UNLESS you are writing to a tabloid audience (mainstream media to be sure does this as well).

And it deprecates the main point which (if true) is the strongest 'not accountable'.

Separate point when you are starting out in some business the easiest and first customers you get are the ones that nobody else wants or gives bad service to because they are irrational and unreasonable. (Keep that point in mind..)

There is an example with Zappos of someone being able to spend an entire day pleasing one customer. That is entirely unreasonable and except for the story and publicity value of that event makes no sense at all since anyone who wants to spend that much of your time is not going to be a customer that you (probably) want long term. At a certain point you simply have to (in business or life) walk away.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2016/07/118020/zappos-custo...

I was going to agree with this but then I realized and made this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906

Essentially I feel this is about business for the firm going forward, not anything that happened in the past.

The key to this is simple. 'as well as represented parties that may be adverse'. (Past and as I say below 'future')

The judge doesn't want her husband's firm to be disadvantaged by the connection such that (for lack of a better way to put it) the firm can't further benefit from the money that will flow surrounding this case going forward for any party that is involved. If a partner's wife is the judge hard to believe that wouldn't be a good reason to not pick the firm 'just to be sure'.

Well forgetting the fact that neither of us can prove what we think about this I do believe it's a form of signaling. At least in the sense that someone who does not have status if (from my observation over the years) less likely to do things that could further confirm or lower their status.

For example growing up my mom had a 'cleaning lady'. That cleaning lady would insist that when my mom dropped her off it was not in front of her house but where her neighbors couldn't see that another woman was dropping her off (because that would imply she was cleaning houses). Likewise an employee of my father (factory/warehouse work) would always change out of their clothes and travel home in something much nicer. And not because the clothes were dirty either.

I dress in a t-shirt and dungarees everyday. When I was younger (and also in my own new business) I wore a suit. Sure times were different but for one thing now I don't need to prove anything.

Separate point do people really 'worry' about hosting a website where all it has to do is display static information?

You would reach the same huge audience by putting in a summary and link to a website with the detailed info.

> If your post is popular, it won't get DDoSed off the air

So someone who is capable enough (or a team) to pull off and uncover this exploit can't be troubled to run a website (server whatever) that can handle ddos or traffic?