zedprime posted:

Are you sure of the cause and effect there?

quote:

“If you find that FTX customers, after depositing funds with FTX, received a credit to transact on the FTX exchange and therefore received the right to withdraw an equivalent amount of funds at a later time upon request, that is insufficient to establish that they were deprived of property,” the jury instruction from the defense says.

quote:

“A popular movie from the 1990s illustrates the point: a briefcase, once filled with money, is not the same as a briefcase later filled with IOUs.” In “Dumb and Dumber,” when the briefcase reaches its owner, it’s filled with paper.

“That’s as good as money, sir,” says Carrey, playing the character Lloyd Christmas.

Zero One posted:

SBF's lawyers have a great plan to win. They want to give the jury instructions that

You can't convict if clients had been given account statements that say they have money. Even if that money was gone.

Or as the prosecution says in their reply:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/20/prosecutors-in-sbf-trial-compare-defense-argument-to-dumb-and-dumber.html

Salt Fish posted:

I didn't realize it was against the law to steal 10 billion dollars of customer funds, take them to the casino, and then lose them.

Zero One posted:

SBF's lawyers have a great plan to win. They want to give the jury instructions that

quote:

“If you find that FTX customers, after depositing funds with FTX, received a credit to transact on the FTX exchange and therefore received the right to withdraw an equivalent amount of funds at a later time upon request, that is insufficient to establish that they were deprived of property,” the jury instruction from the defense says.

You can't convict if clients had been given account statements that say they have money. Even if that money was gone.

Foxfire_ posted:

This seems extra weird since, as I understand it, FTX's problem is not "Customers gave FTX money, FTX loans that money out and charges interest, and there is some risk of loss". That was all publicly stated as what they were doing as a hedge fund and the claimed way they were going to get the money to pay interest to customers.

FTX's fraud problem is that they also told customers "Before we make a loan, we do risk diligence process X, require initial collateral to backstop the loan, continuously monitor the lendee and essentially margin call them whenever the collateral drops too much". Then they secretly actually did "Alameda (that SBF also controls) is permitted to borrow as much money as it would like, with no risk investigation, posting no collateral, and not subject to any call no matter how low their assets get", followed by Alameda blowing all the money it borrowed on bad investments in Chinese real estate junk bonds and going bankrupt.

The fraud part is lying about lending standards, not lying about making loans at all

drk posted:

drk posted:

quote:

BE ADVISED: We have see a "close" of a 3-day candle "higher" than the Buying Climax and the Second Test of Supply; Which Qualifies as an "Up-Thrst After Distribution" (UTAD) event in this period of RE-Distribution.

drk posted:

drk posted:

drk posted:

drk posted:

fisting by many posted:

drk posted:

resistentialism posted:

quote:

BE ADVISED: We have see a "close" of a 3-day candle "higher" than the Buying Climax and the Second Test of Supply; Which Qualifies as an "Up-Thrst After Distribution" (UTAD) event in this period of RE-Distribution.

Deptfordx posted:

'Oh no!'

or possibly

'We're all getting lambo's!'

Who could say?

Deptfordx posted:

'Oh no!'

or possibly

'We're all getting lambo's!'

Who could say?

drk posted:

ashpanash posted:

This bitcoin jerkoff is literally being called a "Wyckoff Accumulation."

I mean there's self-parody and then there's this, which is just shattering the loving looking glass.

CannonFodder posted:

Try looking at the text blocks on the graph. It’s all jargon and acronyms. It’s oddly satisfying and poetic how my eyes just slide off of the text.

ashpanash posted:

Right? As an accumulation of wackoffs, it sure is something.

ashpanash posted:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, my plan was always ultimately to rob from [everyone] and give to the poor. And you can trust me to make good decisions about who to give charity to because as this trial has made clear my judgment is impeccable

Elden Lord Godfrey posted:

This Effective Altruism saga demonstrates how much of a loving joke is post-Reagan neoliberalism, where lower taxes and cutting of social services can be supposedly be made up for by private charities.

CharlestheHammer posted:

It shouldn’t be to shocking the ruling class has completely detached themselves from the people they rule so failure or success doesn’t really matter.

CaptainSarcastic posted:

It strikes me as bizarre that neoliberalism is demonstrably failed, yet continues to be the dominant paradigm. Although a quick search just now did locate several recent articles talking about us being in the twilight of neoliberalism.

That search also turned up an academic paper on the subject that looks interesting, but too long for me to read right now. Going to go ahead and link it, partly so I might remember to go back and actually finish it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0032-1

MechaCrash posted:

I do wonder if the era of "this rich guy is a loving moron but nobody wants to admit it" is coming to an end

drk posted:

lol, the DOJ actually cited dumb and dumber to explain how bad sbf's legal argument was

PurpleXVI posted:

That it has "demonstrably failed" brings up the questions of "failed at what" and "failed who."

Because has it failed to build a better, more equitable society for everyone? Yes. Has it failed at being sustainable? Yes. Has it failed the vast majority of people who live under it? Yes. Is it literally failing to keep the Earth capable of sustaining life as we know it? Yes.

Has it failed to centralize wealth, both liquid and assets, within a narrow group of people and companies? No. Has it failed to make them incredibly rich? No. Has it failed to give the illusion to people that they could be the next mega-trillionaire if just neoliberalism is given a bit longer leash so they can start up their child labour uranium mine in the back yard of their Air BnB? No.

So I think the answer to "why is it still in charge" is that "it's very profitable for powerful people" and "they convince non-powerful people that it could be profitable for them, too." The alternatives are consistently very bad at actually messaging to ordinary people that it would improve their lives, or to get through their mental shield against the perception that they are ordinary and not life's protagonists.

drk posted: