The Coffeezilla vid even brings up the complicity in the end. He brings up one guy who actually figured out that SBF was full of shit back in July. The guy claimed he brought the story to Bloomberg...and the people at Bloomberg turned him down. They even supposedly outright said they didn't want to lose access or something.
The Coffeezilla vid ends with him mentioning that for the sake of fairness he reached out to Bloomberg for a response and they gave no response.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe Party can never fail; it can only be failed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I feel bad for the people who actually invested real money with FTX. Sure, a lot of people were smart enough to realize early on that SBF was full of shit, but FTX did a lot of work to make themselves seem legit.
They got Larry David to do a Superbowl commercial for them, for crying out loud.
Disgusted, but not surprisedCelebrity endorsements are one of the most common and popular forms of advertising out there because they work. It's the same mentality that causes companies to spend tens of thousands of dollars on Twitch and YouTube sponsorships.
We've been discussing FTX's collapse here for a while. It's interesting that Legal Eagle got into it: his popularity will bring more people into the conversation. However, his coverage is not the most detailed of what's out there.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I understand the idea of celebrity endorsements. I'm pointing out that this specific choice of celebrity endorsement was weird. Apparently it was literally the first time Larry David had ever appeared in an ad (this Variety article
discusses how Larry David generally didn't accept ads before this because he didn't like the idea.)
Crypto also lacks a lot of legal protections for the transactions, doesn't have a minimum liquidity established by law and barely has any auditing to see if the traded "assets" are actually valid.
It is downright prone to be a target for Ponzi schemes.
And yet there are too many cryptobros invested on it, either because of Sunken Cost Fallacy, or they are so confident of its future success they stop processing valid criticism as just "haters" or are in the grift.
Inter arma enim silent legesDan Olson pointed out in his "The Line Goes Up" video that most of the cryptobros seem to not be especially smart and are very gullible. Like, falling for extremely blatant scams and not understanding really basic business concepts.
"I got into this crypto because they promised the concept of maybe talking about possibly making a potential video game at some undefined point in the future." A lot of stuff like that.
Or the currency owners bought ad space on a random awkwardly placed billboard in Times Square.
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 2nd 2022 at 1:18:19 PM
It also appeals to the "gubermint bad!" types.
As the whole point of being a decentralized "currency" that can be used as stock investment, that in theory can't be traced or be subjected to tax audits, attracted a lot of people into the idea that the government will collapse, or that crypto is the future of monetary transactions or that want a form to make "easy" money that won't be taxed.
That of course the people who use crypto to purchase illegal goods and services.
Regardless of how many times you point out that crypto is worthless as money because not only it isn't accepted everywhere at predictable and stable exchange ratios, there aren't enough traders willing to cash out bitcoins for actual money, those that do eventually crash and burn like FTX and Mt Gox.
As investments are also pretty risky since not only they lack most legal protections most stocks would have, but the enterprises using crypto have almost no liquid or physical assets to actually honor what they allegedly have and crypto value depends entirely of what the users think it is worth. it can also be easily manipulated by using bots, pump and dump schemes or depend solely how "popular" the currency is.
Inter arma enim silent legesWell, people not understanding why crypto has no inherent value have probably been primed to think that by, you know, the stock market. No one ever explains what stock valuations are actually based on, and many things are grossly overvalued.
So it looks like value is handled in this completely hidden way and the crypto creators have the key to understand it.
FTX's collapse hits the Land Down Under.
Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Worst-case scenario’: Local crypto exchange Swyftx lays off 40% of staff
Even exchanges not directly affected by FTX's collapse are feeling it.
Edit:
12/3/2022 Business Insider: Sam Bankman-Fried was the poster boy for 'effective altruism.' Now followers are heartbroken, critics are questioning FTX's 'weird' funding setup.
FYI, "effective altruism" meant earning as much as possible to be able to give away more (in theory). SBF pioneered this, which is how he gained the reputation as the "world's most generous billionaire".
If you think this sounds a lot like trickle down economics (also a load of horseshit)...congratulations, you're smarter than everyone who bought into SBF's act.
Edit Edit:
What's the one thing more humiliating than having the guy who oversaw Enron's bankruptcy calling your business the worst shitshow he's ever seen?
Having Bernie Madoff's lawyer telling you to shut the fuck up.
12/3/2022 Bloomberg: Bernie Madoff’s Lawyer Has Some Advice for Sam Bankman-Fried: Shut Up
Basically, the lawyer's saying SBF should stop with this performative "apology" tour bullshit and listen to his lawyers' advice to shut up.
Edited by M84 on Dec 5th 2022 at 12:16:20 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedIsn't that just what the robber barons of yore did? Accumulate as much wealth as possible and then spend it on the arts and public works (i.e. Carnegie) to prove that being obscenely wealthy was good for society so please don't tax us.
Effective Altruism is...a really, really toxic ideology, honestly. The concept sounds like it makes sense (target your giving and charitable activities in the most efficient way possible), but the result is generally just a lot of people arguing about what counts or does not count as effective and a hell of a lot of the "giving" is to a series of nested charities that are generally owned by the people championing the movement or their close personal friends.
It's like longetermism. The core idea is sort of okay, but the actual way it manifests is really bad and it's a huge red flag concerning the people who focus on it.

And the time has come to prove they are criminals, I guess.
Wake me up at your own risk.