Topic: Live Coverage: US House Committee Holds Hearing on FTX Collapse (Read 91 times)

That clown Kevin O'Leary keeps defending SBF. During today's hearing, one of the senators asked him "why do you believe FTX failed?" to which he replied that its Binance fault. Poor SBF, the fact that he mismanaged billions of dollars had nothing to do with collapse, its someone else's fault.

here is the thing though
when it comes to any transaction. whether its a donation, a goods purchase, a loan, or a deposit into a membership/service

a transaction is just a transaction.. it then has to rely on evidence of the purpose of the transaction that then proves how to treat the funds received by the recipient(its why the taxman asks you to keep records)

this is why politicians, celebrities and tax avoiders do not just take funds. they draw up paperwork (of favoured terms) to show the purpose of the funds transfer, even when its paper wrote and then received by same person
(its no surprise SBF lacked paperwork of many transfers, but ensured he had paperwork for the 'personal loan' to himself)

this is also why exchanges need to categorically state that funds received by users are deposits and the service is acting as just a custodian/fund manager of user funds. where it has to state that funds remain the property of the customer (and include all the liability disclosures and disclaimers)

else.... not-your-key-not-your-coin

if there was a dispute. it can only truly be deemed theft, in a court. you still need to prove you are owed coins legally rather then presume they were always yours by right.

this is where exchanges need some honour and ethics and basic trust/loyalty alongside their clear user agreements of their customers, where they do the correct thing from the start without having to end up in court.


there are many many exchanges that do not state the coins handed to an exchange remain the customers property. thus the business can treat them as a donation

so always read the terms of service/user agreement. to find out how funds and customers will be treated

a regulated exchange by default has a assumed(but not guaranteed) 'customer property unless otherwise stated' prospective.
but do not take that as fully legal right. as you still need to prove that you gave those coins over for the purpose of the business to serve you as a custodian/fund manager. and it was not you just doing an airdrop/giveaway/donation/payment for something

for unregulated exchanges. its a free-for-all, again you need to prove purpose of the funds transfer to the business

always check the user agreement terms for how your funds will be treated. some exchanges may surprise you.

there are some important words.. such as "deposit" instead of "payment" address

EG
two people enter a gym. both wearing exercise clothing. there has to be a way to determine which person is an employee/trainer. vs which one is just a member/customer. where by different rules apply. such as a employment policy vs a customer policy. that changes how those two people are treated.
which is where 'uniforms'/name badges. employment contracts, membership agreements come into play

I think the big difference is that those politicians (well, of course except the corrupt ones) and celebrities can be using their own money to loan for themselves so there is actually no need for transparency or accountability but with Sam the source of money is FTX whose capital is not his entirely. I am glad that details of this whole mess and the myriad of abuses that Sam and his minions committed is now exposed to the public so this can be serving as a big warning to people who got the same mindset or thinking as he has. Hope that soon people under Sam can also be arrested and prosecuted for the role they played in the FTX collapse.

in regards to the $1b loan

many politicians and celebrities do "personal loans" with favoured terms of repayment of just 10cents every decade or have terms where the loan is to be written off upon death/after X years
by being the loan giver and recipient. writing your own terms means you give favour to yourself to not need to repay

this is done for LEGAL tax avoidance.
yep a loan is not taxable. so instead of doing a payment of income to oneself they would give a personal loan to oneself to not have to pay tax on that money received.
its very well known tax loophole which even politicians use

as for SBF current personal holdings
he spent over $300m on real estate for his colleagues and family

it appears the bahamas authorities froze SBF personal bank accounts over there. and us agencies froze accounts in the US. thus SBF only had access to about $100k + bank of his parents.
SBF could make small "expense" requests to bahamas authorities to release some funds to pay needed expenses. (lawyers+rents)
(having funds in bahamas allows SBF a bit of freedom/escapism from personal debt. which explains the "hack" theft after the bankruptcy. as explained at the 3rd hour of my previous post)

as for lifestyle stuff
its why he went on a "speaking tour" of interviews this month to get paid

 .. but right now in jail he only has access to the commissary account to buy noodles and potato chips

I like how she smiles while saying that he made a 1 billion loan to himself and claims he wasn't aware of the terms of repayment.

A normal person takes a 1k loan and has to read and sign all the paperwork. This guy takes 1 billion with 0 interest like it's nothing and thinks he doesn't have to give it back. Then he wastes it all because he no longer has it and his net worth isn't even 10% of that loan so where the fuck is all that money?

Looks like many people in the committee are having fun. They can't believe this is a real company. It all feels like a comedy until you look some victims in the eye and then see that chubby unfazed face of SBF. I'm not an antisocial person but if they were sentencing him to life in prison I'd feel nothing but joy.

or there is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ObdFaUL7nc

some highlights as i watch
17:00 - SBF made a loan to himself of $1billion
by being both the issuer and the recipient, those funds (currently still investigating) have not been found to have then been passed to ftx.us ftx.com accounts
there were numerous "personal loans"

18:25 - alemeda operation was dependant on the use of customer funds of FTX.com(international)

19:15 FTX did not have significant risk management systems. there were virtually no internal controls or separations of funds whatsoever

22:53 FTX.us ftx.com and alemeda shared the same wallet. the hotwallet of those brands and also customers of those brands were co-mingled funds with no distinction of separation of capital

23:50 FTX.us ftx.com and alemeda as platforms were all stored/hosted on the same amazon AWS services with the hotwallet of co-mingled funds on same said amazon aws hosted service

27:28 the administrator(new ceo) has only been able to secure $1b of assets so far to cover .us and .com customers. 'it will take time to secure all assets

1:13:58 SBF parents gave legal advice and received payments which the committee is deeming to classify parents as employment

1:35:35 the main trigger/cause of the FTX collapse was the unlimited ability by those in control of the co-mingled funds to borrow, take or deploy those funds for their personal use. such as margin(gambling) or spending of funds(real estate & lifestyle)

3:00:43 after filing bankruptcy. employees (SBF & wang) moved funds out of FTX and they were not put into other FTX based accounts.

(ill take a break here and watch more and edit later)

Here is the link if anyone wants to go watch it https://www.coindesk.com/tv/breaking-news/breaking-news-dec-13-2022/