So, SBF had liabilities of thousands of Bitcoins according to his balance sheet, but ZERO in custody. All this while claiming not to touch customer funds. How has no one asked where the BTC went? All i hear is mislabeling or accountinf failure, where is the damn Bitcoin? (and the shitcoins for that matter)
40 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 2 Dec 2022
Damn right. He is so transparently full of shit that this soft shoe mainstream media dance really scares me.
reply
86 sats \ 1 reply \ @rolator OP 2 Dec 2022
They ask him: Are you a scammer?
Him: I didn't mean to scam anybody (but it just happened)
They: oh noo, so sorry for you, that must be tough.. here some applause (clapclapclap)
what a bunch of A-holes
and I've not even been affected by this pig, but drives me nuts anyway
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 2 Dec 2022
Same here. If I had been I would be furious.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 2 Dec 2022
I really think it has to do with the campaign donations and how cushy he was with SEC and Gensler. It's going to seriously strain any remaining credibility these institutions had remaining if the inquiry into SBF isn't carefully controlled. They're pushing so hard to make him look sympathetic so that people don't start protesting against gov't
reply
6 sats \ 2 replies \ @jp 2 Dec 2022
Liabilities are not assets.
He had thousands of liabilities because they promised customers to pay Bitcoin, but FTX never had the promised-bitcoin in their custody. As a result, when people asked for their promised-bitcoin, FTX could not meet the demand and they became insolvent. The Bitcoin was never purchased in the first place.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @rolator OP 2 Dec 2022
While that might be the case, there must have been some people that sent BTC to the exchange. They claim not to touch them, but it seems like they got sold immediately in order to pump their shitcoin
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @jp 2 Dec 2022
Yes this is the crux of why SBF is in trouble; they used customer deposits (whether BTC, fiat or shit coins) to compensate for their failed PE investments (in order to keep it afloat) with the hope that their PE would make enough money in the future to pay back the customers when the customers withdrew funds.
In some way, this isn't too different from Fiat banking; the repeal of Glass-Steagall resulted in banks being able to invest customer deposits into risky assets. What resulted was a bubble in complex securities (mortgage-baxked securities & credit default swaps) which led to failure of some banks. The only difference is that the Gov and Central Bank effectively paid for the losses that the bank received - creating a precedent that risky investment of client funds are acceptable with limited repercussions.
Since 2008 this trend in risky investment has continued (in both Fiat and crypto worlds) as fund managers are looking for yield. A decade of artificially low interest rates have effectively forced funds to gamble to produce some returns.
EDIT: regarding people buying and selling Bitcoin on their exchange, this was possible because FTX had legitimate liquidity on their exchange to support normal deal flow. It was only when there was a run on the exchange that they became illiquid and then insolvent
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kim 2 Dec 2022
It went to RenBTC bridge, where 'altcoins' could be cashed out
reply