bit¢oin$

I'm not sure who he could even flip on at this point.

matt yglesias

he can name all the VCs in the "let's go crazy doing the financial crimes we describe in detail in the chat group" chat group

― mark s, Wednesday, December 28, 2022 3:37 PM (twenty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I must have missed this chat group where the VCs admitted to doing financial crimes, but I am extremely skeptical VC-types have anything to worry about.

he defiantly did crimes with the tether org, are his prosecutors interested in tethers crimes, idk probably tether is bigger than ftx and is at the root of a lot of crypto mischief, im sure theyd listen if he had things to say about vcs and various other crypto characters but tether is the one

could be the other ftx execs who flipped already gave up all that info tho

the straw donations thing should probably be run down but won’t

The vc thing seems like a kill one person (murder) v. kill a million ppl (king) thing. I'm pretty sure the buck is going to stop at SBF.

you missed the group chat in question bcz i made it up to make a funny joek abt the dumbness of all this, i have no idea who SBF is going to flip on, maybe it's senators or paris hilton

fed look interested in taking down Binance, maybe he's got something on them for a lighter sentence

i still don't understand any of this but i notice a wild winklevoss

340,000 Gemini Earn customers are missing over $900 million.

Cameron Winklevoss of Gemini called out Barry Silbert for not returning the funds.

Here’s what we know 🧵

— Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) January 3, 2023

the really confusing thing about this is that gemini and genesis are too similar words

To explain what happened here: Gemini offered Gemini Earn, a magical thing that gave you up to 7.4% returns - unrealistic returns - and did so by lending the $900m in Gemini Earn to Genesis/DCG, who have now lost that money. The money is gone! Woosh! https://t.co/u7DzjFWTta

— Ed Zitron (@edzitron) January 2, 2023

i still don't understand any of this but i notice a wild winklevoss

As far as I can tell, just reading about it now, it's actually a pretty simple and old story -- Company A: "Lend us your money and we will pay you more in interest than it makes any sense to pay on it." Company A then takes that money and lends it to Company B, who offers even higher doesn't-make-sense interest on it. Company B then uses the money to engage in dumb high risk trades that have a small chance of a huge payout. Those trades go bad. Company B to Company A: "Oops, I don't have the money to pay you back." Company A to its investors: "Company B didn't pay us back, so now we can't pay you back." Did I miss anything?

It's just a variation on a ponzi scheme -- put money in magic box and we promise we make even more money come out

one thing is that company a wasnt totally clear that they were asking for people to loan rather than deposit money, good account here https://ez.substack.com/p/i-lost-900-million-dollars-but-its

and fwiw im sure the scheme worked wonderfully while crypto was booming

going up a hill by boat works great when the water's rising

it also works if you just really want to do it (fitzcarraldo, herzog, 1982)

lol

seems like all the big crypto players just panic every time someone expects liquid assets and get one of their peers to give them money, and in return they might give the other company some tokens or magic beans that are, as all cryptocurrency, going to always go up in value

you see it's not a ponzi scheme because I traded my very valuable magic beans for real money to pay people trying to cash out and magic beans are an infinite resource

prob impossible but it would be interesting to figure out how much real money went into the system and where it ended up

what if all money is made up

its all made up to some degree but some is more made up than others, crypto was trying to grow to the point that it by virtue of its size became more real, but it never really got close, particularly considering a lot of its growth was fake too

that's not what this 14-year-old turd told me online. and he seemed extremely confident

Real money? You mean the made up
FIAT currency crying laughing emoji, drools into lap

the next stage is to arbitrage the made-upness differential, enjoy being real ilxors

hey its the company that advertises during sports that its the above the board fully audited usa based exchange

Coinbase fined $100M over KYC and AML failures https://t.co/JI5peeKy63

— Protos (@Protos) January 4, 2023

hah that's just a state investigation, that's not even the feds

2023 and you can't find a slurp juice anywhere

Can’t get over the fact that Logan Paul subscribed to my Patreon, advertised it on his main channel, said he admired my “work ethic” & “creativity”, and then said he’s suing me. https://t.co/eYB57EIHgQ pic.twitter.com/8guq428rtM

— Coffeezilla (@coffeebreak_YT) January 4, 2023

fyi that guy is a crypto muckraking youtuber who just did a video on logan pauls many nft crimes

he has this extreme cringe scifi noir schtick but he does do a good job digging stuff up, its actual journalism happening on youtube now that i think about it, waht a world

“One second of research would prove that to be false,” Paul hit back. “You can definitely hatch eggs and even breed your animals.”

lmao just the dumbest shit ever

Want a MasterShake read of that line

is this a slurp juice thing

its slurp juice adjacent

it’s also extremely On Cinema

this is one of my favorite songs

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-claims-to-have-lost-200-btc-in-hack/

bonus, he's a mel gibson-y "fuck this newfangled catholicism" catholic *and* a monarchist

and oh wow what's this, there was a bitcoin fundraiser for him just 5 yrs ago, after his house got dinged by hurricane irma. maybe the bitcoin-munity will pull together once again and funnel more fake dumb money to this choad.

More generally, the sentiment is that a bunch of crypto VCs are in a really bad spot regarding insider trading, something I've called out here on many occasions

It doesn't matter if they were/are securities, you can't insider trade

— Leigh Drogen (@LDrogen) January 5, 2023

what if you're in congress when you do it

then its ok

It doesn't matter if they were/are securities, you can't insider trade
— Leigh Drogen (@LDrogen) January 5, 2023

What is the basis of that statement?

I mean I will feel a bit uninformed if/when someone points it out to me, but I'm pretty sure that "insider trading" isn't just, like, a common law crime. You have to have some specific regulatory scheme involved. And if it's not a security, then what is the basis of "you can't insider trade"?

insider trading is pretty much based on caselaw, there is no statutory basis iirc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Court_decisions

yeah heres a matt levine column examining the issue https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-02/don-t-insider-trade-nfts

iirc he basically says insider trading is a type of securities fraud and its really the fraud that matters, so if youre not insider trading securities its just some other type of fraud

Paywalled. Insider trading in securities is all under 10b-5 and 20A. I've never heard it suggested that you could insider trade, like, beanie babies or real estate, for example.

heres an archived one https://archive.ph/eFNP9, great service btw just put the url of the paywalled article in and its prob already there, the article is about a guy getting charged for insider trading nfts

which def arent securities

Paywalled. Insider trading in securities is all under 10b-5 and 20A. I've never heard it suggested that you could insider trade, like, beanie babies or real estate, for example.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:26 PM (four minutes ago)

as you know, 10b-5 doesn't define what insider trading is. and obviously, there is nothing statutory that says how to define crypto.

i'm not an expert here but it seems to me a lot of the crypto cases the SEC is bringing is trying to establish caselaw that says yes, crypto is securities - and once you get that hook you can then try to use 10b-5 (if you're the SEC). 20A appears to be private right of action only?

that insider trading NFT case isn't a 10b-5 case, they're charging the guy with wire fraud. levine's point is though that the 'fraud' in question here looks just like insider trading, which is based on a theory of fraud via caselaw under 10b-5, 20A, etc.