Topic: Sam Bankman-Fried the "savior" and his ideas (Read 537 times)

1. SBF is a BUSINESS MAN. he is buddies/sister company of the DCG (the same business group whos interests are trying to mess with bitcoin(code/network) for business desires(not individuals preferences)

2. bitcoin(CODE/network) should not have any businesses inside (central point of failure).. it should be just code that runs itself without a business in control/making decisions(as the legacy parts still do)

3. its your buddy group of social protagonists and finger pointers that supports the businesses trying to be IN bitcoin. you want them in and you and your buddies have many times said how core(sponsored devs by business interests) should own and control the code and should be allowed to upgrade it as they please.. because in your girlfriend(doomads) own words. no one should be able to stop core devs(sponsored by blockstream=DCG)

4. the past controversy(YOU BROUGHT UP FIRST IN THIS TOPIC) is where BUSINESSES overstepped the mark, crossed the line and got into the core of the network to implement the changes in a mandatory way... those BUSINESSES wanted,  for their services and subnets to function

5. YOU support those actions but then point the finger at other directions, all directions bar the ones you support
    YOU think the 2017 activation was just a soft non event where it was suppose to activate "due to community". where you are blind to the narrow BUSINESS community that caused the activation(which you pretend is the wide bitcoin community of individuals)

6. i base my bitcoin utility and usage based on the LEGACY aspect of bitcoin not your favoured business activated features that allow the subnets you adore and want people to off ramp into, to remove utility off of bitcoin 'as the solution to scaling';(facepalm)

7. YOUR social protagonist group are the one declaring and trying to falsely convince people segwit and then your subnets are bitcoin and what everyone should use instead of the features(legacy) of 2009-2014.. YOU are the one promoting your favoured side services and subnetworks are bitcoin and the top solution everyone should use instead of the actual bitcoin network as was invented and used 2009-2014(defined as legacy).
im the one correcting you by separating your myths. by informing people your side services and subnetworks are not bitcoin, but things that require people locking up value on the network. to then use things on the edges or outside the network!!
yep into schemes that require atleast another person or group or a succession of people in a route to agree on a payment, just to get a 'payment success. . (facepalm)

8. you and your social club are the one trying to put your subnetwork and services at the center of bitcoin or ontop as if they are the solution and place people should move into.


FTX and DCG and many of your favoured devs want bitcoin to become a commodity because it fulfils the BUSINESS plans of making bitcoin no longer a digital cash for the unbanked and instead a reserve system for elite services where the blockchain space is only used for locked value of subnets and ETF buckets, and exchange reserves, and where people have to deposit value into to then 'mix'
you lot dont care about self control of peoples own value. you want people to lock value into federated smart contracts, hub channels and coinjoin party mixers.

please realise where you sit. and learn the BUSINESS plans of your idols

your motley crew of social protagonists dont care about the integrity of the bitcoin code(the bitcoin network) you only care about the services you think and want to be IN bitcoin.. but then point fingers that detract from what your favoured businesses are upto .. to pretend its  government or no-bitcoiners that are the cabals in bitcoin.. or even pretend anyone calling out on the BUSINESS over reach must be anti-bitcoin. or where scammers outside of bitcoin are causing bitcoin issues

governments are outsiders. but are scratching at the edges.. more and more.
scammers like CSW have nothing to do with bitcoin. he is playing on his own silly little network no one cares about and he has no significance to bitcoin

businesses should be at the edges. no one should have major control to just activate things on bitcoin as a cabal

when you can separate bitcoin the code/network. from the businesses that want to abuse bitcoin. you might learn something..
(i doubt it because you are as ignorant now as you were years ago)
..
it seems you dont know or want to admit to the "idea's" of SBF

he wants bitcoin to become a commodity where its not treated as a currency but as a reserve for money service businesses to use where individuals are offramped to subnetworks

YOU are part of a social group of fangirls that support those ideals.. while pretending you are now and again against it.. but then strangely promote the same ideals they do

its been too long with you pretending to be against those ideals or just dumb(meanwhile simultaneously supporting those ideals).. so now i think you are fully aware or your fanboyism of those ideals. and are now just pretending to be an ignorant pleb

You would be if you realised how little you understand it, or how utterly toxic and dangerous your ideas are.  As far as I'm concerned, you're no better than this Bankman-Fried clown.  I'd be willing to bet he's as much of a narcissistic sociopath as you are.  Probably believed he was the "good guy" like you do, yet all of his ideas were clearly wrong.  The only difference between you is that people made the mistake of listening to him.  Thankfully no one listens to your drivel. 



Which is why it continues to resist all the dumb, fascist shit you'd love to implement.  Many of your idiotic proposals would make Bitcoin easier to attack or subvert.  So you continue screaming into the void like you're somehow here to save us.  Only you're too delusional to realise that you are the problem.  You'd do well not to enter into topics discussing those with a saviour complex when yours is so undeniably blatant. 

First of all I NEVER said Bitcoin had a cabal. I'm talking about the cabal behind the government. If you're going to act like a franky again, then you should first understand the topic at hand.

Plus from our debates from before, you're the person who's accusing Bitcoin of having a cabal, which of course there is NONE. The people behind the New York Agreement, who excluded the Core Developers, tried to be that cabal, but they never won against the community.

first of all IN BITCOIN there is no cabals... i think you are again confusing bitcoin with the businesses gated AROUND bitcoin that use bitcoin at the edges
there is no business "inside bitcoin"

yes i have learned years ago that groups like yourself and your buddies dotted AROUND and below and outside of bitcoin want to say bitcoin is unfit for use so you can persuade people to offramp their value to other networks that rely on users to partner up and sign for each other, requiring trust cooperation, availability and acknowledgement agreement between each other just to make payments.. slowly then requiring larger hubs to service multiple users and then custodianise those hub models to sort out the liquidity issues, which then becomes reliant on each other and requiring them to be online to even transact together..
shame your not realising your part of those groups even though i have mentioned your groups actions many times over the years

and yes your favoured subnetwork you pretend is better or ontop of bitcoin, will become more regulated due to the whole payment mechanism(routing) being a middleman service for a fee, which regulators call being a MSB/MF (money service business/money facilitator)

....
bitcoin has no ear. no eye. bitcoin cannot read government law or hear a senator/minister
however
humans can.. government laws apply to humans and businesses humans run

you cant arrest bitcoin

yes humans, cabals and businesses can do things and either create or destroy, use or abuse. and governments will regulate the human action

bitcoin was created to not be able to be attacked by any one human. there is no central business/human to shutdown/arrest
no central point to fake value/units.

but in businesses they can tweak their user accounts database.
in your favoured subnet a channel partner can create liquidity of msats without a confirmed utxo(EG thor turbo). wallet businesses can make software that changes the pegs of sat:msat from 1:100 to 1:anything, which you only realise you lost when you eventually broadcast months later

once you realise that bitcoin itself is different to the subnetworks and businesses you love and trust and admire and promote. you might see the separation better and maybe actually appreciate bitcoin, rather than your silly subnets and services you prefer to admire

bitcoin is better, and unlike you im sticking with it
i dont hoard my coins on exchanges or silly subnets or sidechains
...
with all that said.
yes there are many other groups that also finger point business/subnet flaws onto bitcoin
many altnetters do and will use these business/custodian/sub/sidenet event failures to try to blame bitcoin for it, and then stupidly/ironically/hypocritically then advertise their services.. but smart people that can tell the difference are in no doubt. bitcoin is still strong

But this is where you should have learned, perhaps a very long time ago, that in Bitcoin the cabal has, and will always blame the technology. The people, mostly plebs like me, that are empowered through technologies such as Bitcoin will be called/labeled as radicals, or people who want to "break things", the "trouble makers". Why do you think they want to regulate it? To your viewpoint, they should only regulate the business, but leave Bitcoin alone, no?

As a result, SBF admitted that he screwed up and that he should have been better, also addressing an unnamed competitor, he admitted defeat, I hope we will soon find out all the details, while SBF himself found himself in the position of companies that he had previously been engaged in buying.

this is where you need to learn the difference between BUSINESSES and bitcoin

when it comes to businesses. they are always going to do things like create their own paper losses, or tax avoidance financial records. or claim to be hacked or that they had a bug with their internal database, or some other silly way to abuse a system, that also includes scammers trying to get people to invest/hand over value with silly hopes of returns by trusting their system(such as the names mentioned in the quote)

but bitcoin itself you cant have debt/credit, false coins,
you either have coins. or you dont.

i am not embarrassed or ashamed to hoard bitcoin. i am proud to have my coin on legacy utxo where im the sole owner of the keys. where i dont hold coin in custodial services or convert value into altnets.. my coin is mine and im sole owner. my coin is my coin and im happy, i am not at the risk of needing other people to agree with my decisions to move coin. my value is mine

i dont care much for the temporary price events. because i dont base my value at the latest ATH or the whims of speculation of the moment

when people hand bitcoin to a custodian, or multisig lock it into a partnership, people need to learn they are already at risk of loss just by not having full/sole/guaranteed access to the coins.

even sidechains, subnets where the pegs and locks are not then secured by a large consensus audit system on the other network are at risk.

a unbroadcast/unconfirmed/unsettled bitcoin transaction is the same as a payment that never happened.. yes you can risk zero confirm payments, butthats a personal choice based on risk awareness of security vs versatility, with the hope and 'promise' that one day it might confirm/settle in your favour.... but accept that risk that what is promised to be paid may never end up as a confirmed amount in your favour later.

know the risk. accept the risk.
and just dont be fooled into thinking custodial or unaudited subnetworks are "bitcoin".. no matter what other people have said about how much they love and trust a business/subnetwork.


bitcoin as bitcoin on the bitcoin blockchain where only one user signs for the transfer. is secure for that person.. other things like multisig and custodian then make things less secure for people, especially when a co-partner has to sign or refuse to sign. meaning you are beholden to their acceptance/action

those that understand what bitcoin is, have no fear.. those that want users to offramp to  other networks or offramp to custodian services or even other networks that then require a 'hub'/service managed custodian .. are not the bitcoiners.

the main slogan to remember of all of this
"not your key not your coin"

there is nothing wrong with sidechains, subnets, custodians being an available option/choice. but treat them as temporary niche short term service offering. dont treat pegged coins or subnets or custodians as the offramp where people should keep value long term

Power makes him forget that protecting user assets is what makes him worthy of everyone's trust. The misappropriation of assets causes losses and the users who trusted him end up bearing the consequences. This is so unfair.

Some regulation in the field of stable coins and exchange tokens wouldn't be a bad thing. At least it would make them disclose how much of it is backed because it's obvious that none of them are.

I've never considered buying exchange tokens because you're investing in a third layer of the system with the first being bitcoin, which leads the market, second being an exchange that issues the token, and the third being the token itself that may or may not be backed.
When you buy bitcoin, you take a risk that it could technically fail, because market manipulation isn't really a risk here unless when you're a trader.
When you hold that bitcoin on exchange, you take additional risk that the exchange could not return your coins for whatever reason, like insolvency, AML, local laws, hack, even technical problems.
In case of an exchange token, you take all the above risk plus the one that the token itself brings to the mix. For instance, the token itself could be banned in some countries, while the exchange is allowed to operate.

I agree with that, and if it ever happens this Bankman case will be a small baby compared to what will happen then. CZ can tell fairy tales and play his behind-the-scenes games as much as he wants, but when it's his turn to pay the bills, not even the Communist Party of China will save him.

After all, what matters to all of them is how to sell their tokens in ever larger quantities and collect billions on their secret accounts. As things stand, CEX has become a double-edged sword for Bitcoin and will bleed many more times for them in the future.

So NOBODY is willing to name the truth?

THE JEW FUCKED THE GOYIM !!


hahahaha....

suckers...

Those people/founders who are in charge of FTX are the kind of people who give Anti-Bitcoin people and the nocoiners a REAL reason to tell us "I TOLD YOU SO". They are those same CLOWNS who are in an exclusive group of STUPID like Roger Ver and Craig Wright. This latest drama is making it very embarassing to be called a "Bitcoin HODLer". Are we truly STUPID from the nocoiners' viewpoint? I believe, YES!

He didn't.
He was planning to buy their assets, just as in his proposal with Voyager, but unlike the other, it was all just talks behind the curtains and rumors.


Not even that:
https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/introducing-busd-monthly-reserves-holding-reports-3675220544653402926

I think it's legal as long as there's supported documents to show and besides that, after he has filed for bankruptcy - he has to pay all of his debts through those other assets that he still has.

https://theatlasnews.co/breakingnews/2022/11/09/ftx-founder-files-for-bankruptcy-owes-650-million/

That's $650M of debt to get paid by him and I'm sure if it's not going to be paid by those profits generated by his "other" assets or businesses then he will be forced to sell those if he's got tons remaining on his possession.

if you own a company/trust/large assets. you can set the terms of a loan you are paying out to your personal account. its all dependant on the terms you set yourself that then determines if your loan can be transfered/salvaged/forced to pay back.

there are many news stories over the last few decades about "personal loans" paid to themselves, of prominent people from their business to personal accounts at NIL interest and favourable terms not requiring any/full repayment

normal loans us common people have, have terms where your loan can be sold to collectors.. becasue we common folk dont have the deciding factor on the terms. the loan creator/giver does.. but if you own the business giving loans and dont put those terms in. then its not sold on.

many ceo's, trust managers and politicians do this all the time
..
as for the liquidator scenario
charging invoices of consultation fee's or doing personal loans with dying companies can also have terms that are in favour of the person receiving the gains/value/funds. where by the giver(dying company) cant claw back the loan because of the person favouring terms

its easy to do when your both the new CEO and also the human in receipt of value from a loan.
or if you own both the liquidation company and the liquidated company, where by if handed to a separate administrator. the administrators hands are tied and can only write off the loans/debts

---

over all. if a business is a liquidator.(buys up dying companies to kill them off) and bankrupts them.. the liquidator eventually has to close off too..
when a business buys up a dying company and recovers it into a working sustainable business. the chances of that buyer having to also close up is less because he has now expanded his portfolio

FTX ceo was a liquidator not a recovery guy, he was bound to have to do this event eventually. im just surprised it happened so soon..


if binance did buy FTX.. if it then bankrupted FTX and binance then done the same to other companies. eventually in future binance is going to have to do same thing.. but if binance did buy and then recover FTX into a working sustainable exchange it could have strengthened binance portfolio even more.

binance decided to take the neither option.. forcing FTX hand which was a good strategy fr binance to get rid of a competitor at no cost no loss.

Ah, that means they still have to fight off lawsuits or prepare if someone files a case.

It doesn't look like the safest route or exit strategy by that FTX CEO.

Aren't they suppose to pay the loans to a different debt collector? From what I know, these accounts deemed as uncollectible by an active company (not bankrupt) can still be sold to a collection agency. I'm not sure if it's the same with companies that are to be liquidated.

if you play the loopholes correctly yes its legal, its called tax avoidance.. but if you dont do it correctly, its tax evasion(illegal)


another "avoidance" loophole
which many politicians/ceo's even use for their personal accounts
they do not get paid those "gains" as income. instead they take out a personal loan from the soon to die company where the soon to die company gives the person value(the gains) where by the person has repayment terms of say $1 a month for 100 years followed by a lump sum payment at the end of the 100 years
(affordable terms in persons favour)

because its a 'loan' the person is not in profit/gains. so the person doesnt pay tax. and then when the dying company is wrapped up, the person no longer has to pay the dying company because the terms of the loan exempts them from having to repay, the debt is written off for the person because the company no longer exists to pay

Interesting. Is this process even legal in the US?

Including traders who also get a bigger risk as I experienced. 1 day before the withdrawal and the deposit was stopped I withdrew the asset at FTX and I can only see the history that says "request" and I don't know where my asset is now. FTX is now completely considered bankrupt and I have had to give up a large number of assets in it. Contacting support will only get the same excuse. From 1 to 10, I think Binance managed to get rid of its competitor at number 9.

things people need to realise is this

FTX business plan was to always buy dead companies..

heres how the plan works, for many companies being liquidators

imagine a dead company has $1m good assets but $2m debt
a liquidator(FTX) for a few years comes along and buys dying company for $500k (money to dead company CEO personal bank account to retire)

what the liquidator then does is transfer the $1m good assets out of the dead brand. to a good brand.
they then:
charge the dead brand 'consultation fee's (no real money changes hands) as a invoice
which then puts the dead brand at a larger debt. and shows the good brand being owed money by the dead brand
or they do a 'paper' loan to the dead brand to also show on paper the dead brand owes good brand

they then bankrupt the dead brand. meaning the good brand shows a paper loss. even though it has gained $1m of assets($500k profit)

then. the good brand is not showing "profit" but a balance sheet of X good assets. and then X 'paper' losses from the dead brand, so doesnt have to pay tax on all its REAL gains

repeat for several dead brands

eventually they have shuffled so much good assets out of the good brand into goodbrand+1. that its time to then wrap up the first good brand in a possible sell or bankruptcy because the gains:paper losses are now in very negative numbers.. making good brand become dead brand
(liquidator becomes the liquidated)

in this topics case. binance decided not to become a 'liquidator' by buying a bad 'debt' company FTX... and so FTX ran out of time

that said. the people(FTX CEO) is personally sitting pretty with good assets in another brand elsewhere

Sam Bankman-Fried should never have climbed into bed with Binance, because they are supposedly running a very shady operation. The moment when Binance are going to be put under scrutiny from the regulators, things are going to start to fall apart very quickly. 

Binance saw an opportunity to throw FTX Exchange under the bus and they went for it, by simply pulling their rescue deal at 99.... this effectively sealed FTX's fate. (One action ...eliminated a competitor for Binance....and send the Crypto market into a panic) 

What? Since when did they acquire Celsius?

How Sam SBF and FTX acquired Celsius while they have similar risk taking approach and same issues like Celsius. It is a ridiculous acquisition from FTX and it is surprising to see a few months after that, they did not have solution to strengthen their treasury.

The bad treasury managements of FTX and Celcius are unbelievable but they did make very basic mistake. Using a non-stable asset as a collateral for their treasury. I don't completely agree with all sayings from Binance and CZ but months ago, when $UST stable coin crashed, CZ tweeted that a stable coin is a good one if it is backed by a stable asset. Like BUSD which is backed by fiat currency (at least it is what they claimed they are doing).

CZ’s FAQ 8 - On LUNA/UST and Taking the Right Risks

We might be living our lives in a comedy. We traders and investors in the cryptospace might now have begun to understand that Gary Gensler was really trying to protecting us heehehhe. FTX customers will start demanding for more regulations.

FTFY

though mtgox caused non gox exchanges to blind sheep gox prices down in 2014, as is non ftx blind following FTX down, this is not gonna be the last time an exchange is going to upset the natural price:value balance

I believe that those statements released from the side of Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) just to let the people don't react really well and will not affect the market immediately and after 24 hours when they released of those statements, the market started to tank. And now, Binance released again that they are not interested anymore on FTX acquistion.

Ask mods to give you a special title since you saw how much Sam is trying to achieve before the rest of the people who held money on his exchange. If they had only listened...

The name of Sam will forever be mentioned alongside such renowned figures like Mark Karpeles, Alexander Vinnik, Gerry Cotten and Do Kwon. Only 12 years and we've got ourselves a hall of fame.

Sam Bankman-Fried is officially bankrupt. From starting the week with a net worth over 15 billion to ending it with nothing, this is truly one of the more spectacular bankruptcies I’ve ever witnessed. The world’s most generous billionaire is now broke. I always thought he came out of nowhere fast and when he started donating to liberal politicians I questioned what sort of businessman he is. Now we know. He was shady as fuck and while liberal politicians got nice donations, his customers lost their ass. Pretty typical. The industry is better off without him.

Why limit yourself to the smaller ones?  Big exchanges can fail just as easily.  The only safe bet is to assume every exchange is insolvent until proven otherwise with a fully independent and transparent audit.  I'm still yet to be convinced that Binance are solvent.  And their latest talk of "Proof-of-Reserve" feels like a smokescreen without a "Proof-of-Liabilities" to go along with it.

I did think it was pretty amazing that this one CEO managed to seemingly sell the top and then buy up distressed assets left and right at the bottom.  It seemed as though he had taken a huge gamble with customer funds and was reaping the reward of his successful sells at the top.  However, now we see that he was just making his own tokens and using them as collateral to pretend to be a market savior.  This is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the crypto market.  It makes you wonder about the smaller exchanges now.  How many of them are insolvent and just trying to buy time until the next run?  Are any funds held on any exchanges safe?

Smells like Wasabi Wallet in here  

The issue with blacklists has been debated dozens of times during the past few months. The takeaway? They're fine in centralized services (if only because regulations make it mandatory for them), but in decentralized territory? Big no-no.


Remember that the performance that Bitcoin requires to run properly was only possible because of advancements in computers and the network stack & connections, in the 80s and 90s. So irrespective of the Trilemma, a similar advancement in computing speeds (in particular) will easily levitate the "decentralization" leg of it to make Layer 1 immediately capable of verifying and including more transactions at once. And even if L1 doesn't get a move-on, a second layer can be developed to exploit these technological advancements in processing.

FTX was a company that likes to buy dying businesses and profit from it..

the trick is simple..
buy a dying company cheap.. take out any "good" asset. and then kill off the business that only has bad assets(liabilities) left.

where by they hide the good assets in a separate business.
eventually when all good assets are hidden completely outside the main company portfolio. then you collapse the whole portfolio. and clear your hands of any liability left. and then retire into a new hustle with the good assets.

its standard practice for liquidation companies, im not surprised by the method.. just by the timing.

Two weeks, and god!!, reading this topic feels weird.
I'm so happy I used "savior" with commas, I don't have to change it from savior to unsalvageable, not recyclable etc, etc!
Or switch to "“How the mighty have fallen!" because it fits so well, from the one that had plans to bail out every troubled DeFi and exchange to the one that has to be bailed, from the one talking about regulation to a guy that has definitely played and got in some shady deals behind the scenes.

And why stop here with the ironies:



The future has proved who has no future...
OMG, I could on like this forever!

One more, he wanted to save us, but instead of giving us a fish, he took the fish!


No, the guy promoting the bill selling to the one that wanted to fork bitcoin to get his coins back is not really a step away from centralization!

Looks like Binance is starting to regret their decision on propping up FTX. If I had to guess then this is why today is another day of heavy dipping (8%) currently.
https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1590368491659735043

I really have no idea why Zhao thought "rescuing" was in any way a good idea. If I had to guess then I would say it a was a spur of the moment thing rather than an actual business decision. Now Binance is doing "Due Dilligence" or just saying that they are doing DD as an excuse to drop FTX soonish. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

No doubt that now especially is a bad time to have your Bitcoin (or any crypto) on a CEX. We might see some liquidity caused withdrawal freezing on smaller exchanges soon, if the market keeps crashing at such rates.

As a consequence of the collapse of FTX, there is also positive news: "Bankman-Fried’s priority crypto bill ‘dead’ after FTX sells to Binance" - https://www.theblock.co/post/184436/bankman-frieds-priority-crypto-bill-dead-after-ftx-sells-to-binance?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social Thus, the centralization of the cryptocurrency market has become a few steps further.

Of course, they are free to do so, if Mara wants to censor all the blocks they mine, it's their choice, if Bitpay wants full KYC, proof of Funds, pictures of all your family and former lovers, and a fresh sperm sample every 6 months, they can ask and see how they go bankrupt...or not!

What I dislike is that for a few pennies or for the hope of seeing their investment go up by 10% some will abandon every single ounce of the reason they have, they will trash their moral principles, will start clapping, and even attack everyone who doesn't bow down and pray to the newly found god turning against any sane idea from the community, throwing away liberty and becoming a pet dog for a few coins. I've seen this with Bukele, have the courage to question his actions, his numbers his past projects, you'll be labeled as a traitor, a western propagandist, a banker, and the bigger the mass of those useful brainwashed idiots the easier for them to gain more and more power till at one point you will realize they outnumber you by an order of magnitude. And by that time...it's too late!


I'm curious how many more such cases, after seeing so many in the past, like CZ asking for a rollback or blocking wasabi addresses and a ton of others from Silbert to Armstrong do we need to see to stop being surprised by this?

The "easy" reaction is that the people who run these centralised intermediaries have a dangerous mindset when it comes to blacklisting and that their views are diametrically opposed to the values we hold dear.  But at the end of the day, that doesn't cut it.  Ultimately, these people are free to run their business however they please.  So, aside from not utilising their services, there's sweet-eff-all we can do about it. 

The more difficult realisation to accept is that the onus is upon us to devise a better alternative if we can't abide by their obsession with blacklists.  It's our responsibility to develop technologies which can perform the same function as these intermediaries, but in a decentralised fashion, so that it is immune to regulatory takedown.  That's the only way in which this problem gets resolved to our satisfaction. 

Sam Bankman has been really flashing in almost every news lately that concerns crypto finance, participation in the auction for the assets of the bankrupt Celcius, victory in the auction for the assets of Voyager Digital, all because he can afford it.
However, I would not perceive him as a crypto evangelist, all he does is ultimately have the goal of making a profit and in the end to keep this profit, judging by his statements, he will promote strict centralization.

Despite other people's perceptions of Sam, I think he's been helping people who really don't have much money to provide transaction fees. For a small user like me, the Exchange he provides is very helpful. For the past few days, I have been actively exchanging some small coins for the sake of expenses. It's true that talking about business is still business, but there is a lightning effect we can take advantage of when all exchanges charge withdrawal fees. I think being smart about saving on transaction fees, FTX is my go-to so far.

To me, all these CEX CEOs are more or less the same, although each of them has their own idea that they are trying to push through, using Bitcoin as a kind of link between that idea and the users of their platforms. It is true that they have already become rich to the extent that they can now swim very carefree and pretend to be some kind of savior of all those who are drowning around them.

The real truth is that they don't care about decentralization and Bitcoin, and that their goal is to survive on the market at any cost. I don't have to bother too much with the answer to the question of what would happen if they received an official request from the authorities to remove Bitcoin from their platforms.

I have written many times that they are not such a problem, but the real problem is that people blindly trust and appreciate them for some very strange reasons. All those who say that they will give their wealth to some foundations are especially suspicious to me, because that money does not contribute to the betterment of humanity anyway, but individuals who will use it to play some new saviors.

I follow Sam work during his FTX is not that huge same with Solana since I’m one of the pioneer investor of Serum Project one of Sam greatest idea for a decentralized leverage trading on DEX. He is more focus on development side rather than spouting this ideology. I’m surprised that he was already blinded by power due to the success of his centralized exchange and blockchain(Solana). I never thought that he will become a sort of crypto politician since he is not interested on money before and focus on development side.

He once announced that he will donate his wealth to a foundation that’s why I became a fan before. I was so disappointed that he became like this after all his hardwork on developing a very good exchange. 

Maybe some newbies and altcoiners can see him that way, but he's just another businessman who has felt the potential of crypto industry and started a business in this ecosystem. Nothing else. Not a believer, not a messiah, nothing. It's all about money. Fiat money.

"Saving" those businesses means more businesses to earn from, means more customers he can get fees from. It happens in all kind of industries, not only in crypto.
So anybody seeing him more than he is... should at least wake up (and make sure he doesn't lose money because of doing things while dreaming).

Probably a lot of you are already accustomed to the name of the FTX founder grabbing headline after headline when he offers to buy assets from Celsius in an altruistic way or how he has "saved" Voyager thinking only of its users. Adding on top of that his desire on helping other troubled exchanges and so on he wants probably to portray himself either as a crypto messiah or at least a copy of JP Morgan.

But of course, in his ideal world where everything runs smoothly, we would need some adjustments and you can get an idea of those from the first paragraphs to the last:
https://www.ftxpolicy.com/posts/possible-digital-asset-industry-standards




Of course, this is just one of the many tips of the icebergs flotilla he has unleashed, for him seems like harmony can be achieved by, guess what, centralized coins, clear predefined protocols where percentage rule (I have a Terra flashback here) can solve everything without bothering anyone, and it's all about his care for the normal user that might be scammed or lose money, not about his own greed for power.

Now, I'm pretty sure that his sudden need for law regulation customer protection has started with the FCA poking around FTX and probably others in different countries especially the US looking more carefully at the way FTX is doing business but still, for him to go that fast in this direction highlight again, at least for me why we must never and never name any kind of leader or head figure or promote someone to this kind of virtual position, I think I don't even need to add that a politician would be the last person needed to be branded as such a savior.