ikeboy

I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field.

The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes.

Nobody should have this power, and then abuse of power wouldn't be an issue.

Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact.

What kind of mindset do you need to have where you think the only way to prevent someone from doing something is via the threat of imprisonment after the fact? The vast majority of people don't do this, and that's because they don't have the power to do it, not because they don't want to.

Turning it into an escalating back and forth of each side trying to imprison the other, is not conducive to the kind of change we need. To take a recent example, while I don't particularly like James Comey or Letitia James, I don't think they should have been targeted. That kind of stuff is what happens when it escalates to each side calling for the other side to be locked up.

We need to tame the impulse to throw people in jail for doing things we dislike, not just point it at different targets.

I see several comments saying that criminal charges should be brought over this. That is not the way.

See https://misinfounderload.substack.com/p/tales-from-predictio...

See United States v. Blaszczak.

It may be abuse of trust but that's not automatically a crime.

The equity is a loss, but that's not what I took issue is, which is your evidence free claim that there was a loss on the loan.

https://www.ft.com/content/5eff6c38-9410-45af-94f7-2488b3a87... this also confirms some of it:

>“If bitcoin drops, they give us a margin call [and then] we have to give them more bitcoin,” Mashinsky told the FT in October. He said the loans were typically 30 per cent overcollateralised. The price of bitcoin has since dropped by about half to $30,000. The person familiar with the matter said Celsius had indeed posted more collateral as a result of the falling price.

Sure, maybe everyone's lying, including in sworn declarations. Alex has obviously lied a lot leading up to the Celsius bankruptcy, so I'm not going to say that anything he says must be true. But I don't see any particular reason to doubt the claims here that tether's loan was overcollateralized, called, and liquidated with no loss (and in fact they returned excess collateral to Celsius, as per the court document above "preserve the remaining collateral in excess of the value of the loan"). I do think it's unlikely he'd swear to that specific claim under oath if it wasn't true, as he'd have nothing to gain from it?

If you'd look at the documents filed in the Celsius bankruptcy, you'd see a sworn affidavit that says Celsius stopped providing additional collateral in May 2022:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysb.31...

>In May and June 2022, Celsius made the difficult decision to forgo providing one of its lenders, Tether, issuer of USDT, a stablecoin, additional collateral and agreed to an orderly liquidation of its loan. During the market crash, Tether issued a margin call to Celsius with regard to an outstanding $841 million USDT loan. Although Celsius had always provided sufficient collateral to support its loan, and had never previously been liquidated by Tether, the Company agreed to an orderly liquidation and settlement of its loan with Tether to preserve the remaining collateral in excess of the value of the loan

Bitcoin dropped around 30% in May-June, so this timeline lines up exactly with the 130% collateralization ratio.

I'm also not aware of what US law would have been violated by either

1. Coding and publishing the tornado source code

2. Deploying several instances to the blockchain in 2019.

There's no US prosecutions based on creating or operating tornado. The Dutch one has not charged the person they arrested yet, according to https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/08/24/alleged-tornado-d..., so I don't know what unlawful actions they think he's responsible for.

It closed today at $9.23, so it's a fair guess that he's not getting anywhere near 800M value.

I'm very skeptical that FTX has 10B USDT on the balance sheet. OP here says Sam has billions of tether, which makes sense but is not enough to blow them up, and is likely in Alameda being as he says it's for trading, not in FTX.

(Of course it's possible that FTX has 10B in USDT deposits, but that belongs to their customers who would be very sad if it nuked but doesn't directly hurt FTX.)

Futures insurance fund may be an issue, yes, especially in scenarios where it shifts very rapidly. If you have math on a plausible scenario and total losses across the major markets I'd be interested in seeing it. But you'd have to be looking at several billion in losses or at over 1B directly attributable to FTX for them to go bust - they've raised over a billion and make 350M/year per recent Forbes article, so that's a lot of capital.

FTX in particular has standard coin/USD pairs and also USDT pairs. No reason that USDT collapsing would cause FTX to go bust. Alameda and other market makers might lose a ton if they didn't see it coming.

Also don't understand what moving the market means in this context. The market is at 1:1 for USDT/USD, if there's selling pressure that would lead USDT to trade under $1, the only way to manipulate that is to buy lots of USDT from everyone who wants to sell, which tends to support the peg. Not even sure why that's called manipulation. If there's a real panic and tether turns off withdrawals there's no way anyone has the money to buy everything up at peg.