O que eu entendia da FTX é que ela era uma exchange com UI e UX bem ruins, bem pouco amigaveis para o usuário menos sábido, mas que ela era a melhor exchange para traders profissionais e de volume por conta da sua super engine. Ou seja, a tecnologia do que faz os books correrem e as ordens serem preenchidas.
Será que isso que seria uma mentira?
Já falaram que era tudo mentira.. os executivos afirmaram nos tribunais que o sistema de liquidações deles nem existia, números inventados, etc. e era um prejuízo para eles, basicamente.
For instance, FTX advertised that it had a good liquidation system. In many crypto networks, if someone lost enough money, the exchanges could stick other traders with the losses too. FTX touted its automated liquidation as a way to avoid this, so that one customer going bankrupt wouldn’t affect the others.
In the process of liquidating, FTX would try to sell the collateral on the open market, but if it couldn’t finish, then backstop liquidity providers would step in. These were market makers, including Alameda, which could be compensated for the losses they take from a “backstop fund,” Wang said.
But FTX lied about how much money was in the backstop fund, Wang said. In court we saw the code that generated the fake number published on the website: it took the daily trading volume on FTX, multiplied it by a random number, divided it by a billion, and added it to the existing number displayed on the site. It had nothing to do with the actual amount of money in the insurance fund.