From the Sequoia article on SBF / FTX, it's very likely to be able to trade internationally because each country requires you to have a bank account in that country to be able to access their markets.
In the Sequoia article, SBF gained his initial funding for FTX from executing trades from the US to Japan, where BTC was overpriced because no one bothered to arbitrage it because of the setup difficulty. The way he did this was by contacting a friend to open a bank account in Japan and manage the funding over there while he managed the account US side.
I am sure some of it is normal corporate shell game but I'd imagine at least 50% of this setup was for regulatory purposes. Even small fintechs will have "shell game like" company structure to please regulatory forces that require having certain things be independent from the consumer platform even if the two companies are working towards the same goal.
That sounds to me a lot like a cover story to try and convince people there was actually a value-add. I'm skeptical that the barriers were so high they discouraged anyone from seizing essentially free money, but he solved this with a Japanese friend's bank account.
No one did it for Japan first probably because they have pretty strong criminal liability stuff for securities violations and other financial crimes and don't play the "no fault settlement" game.
It's not illegal to arbitrage but yeah I think what you are pointing at is you have to be regulatory-ily buttoned up for Japan markets vs a more loose market where you don't have to be super careful & can learn as you go.
So SBF having been in finance before (Jane Street), he knew where the footsteps were and how to do it vs a fly-by night crypto investor with no finance background.
Supposedly the Japan “subsidiary” (if you can call it that) was set up by a Japanese person and a resident of Japan, who was a contact of SBF through the Effective Altruism thing. I think they knew something was shady, because the account they had opened in Japan was with a small rural Japanese bank.
When that “arbitrage” turned out to be really lucrative one of the founders of Skype (Talinn something) gave SBF a $50 million loan. SBF and that Talinn guy knew each other also from that Effective Altruism sect-like thing.
All this info was part of a Sequoia congratulatory piece on SBF, they of course had also given him money. The article has since been taken down, it’s still reachable through Web Archive.
This guy has major Epstein vibes (minus the girls). comes out of nowhere super politically connected, investing in research, with a pretty dubious origin story of how he got rich.
What do you even need a blueprint for? The guy did an interview with Matt Levine and laid the Ponzi scheme straight out: scammers make boxes that pay fake coins when you store your money in them, they put so much money into the boxes that the fake coins seem valuable, then they rug pull everyone and move on to the next one. That's how he described his own business.
I remember listening to that interview and this part always got me:
> Matt: (27:13)
> I think of myself as like a fairly cynical person. And that was so much more cynical than how I would've described farming. You're just like, well, I'm in the Ponzi business and it's pretty good.
I seriously cannot understand how after this interview Sam still had any kind of support from VCs and so on.
I hope the late 2010s-early 2020s will be remembered as the dot-com era of extremely dumb money...
> Because they thought they could make money by finding a bigger fool
$10B "somehow" "gone" is QED that someone did find their marks.
More interesting is how none of these guys are seeing the inside of a jail and doing the jailhouse orgies. I wonder if 'defenestration' will become a meme in crypto world too.
> I seriously cannot understand how after this interview Sam still had any kind of support from VCs and so on.
yes you do - because they're at best amoral and know their position and connections means they can make money out of shit like this by ensuring there's a series of bigger fools waiting to buy them out.
Forget VCs. This interview snippet went semi-viral, I don't understand how FTX's customers didn't try to pull all their money out right then and there.
I hate to be the That Guy this time, but pump-and-dump is a different kind of fraud from a Ponzi. Not that anyone cares to make the distinction anymore.
Hey, that guy, tell it to Matt Levine and SBF, who literally used the term in the interview.
:)
I'm just reacting to the idea that you'd need to see the SBF corporations laid out on a diagram to reach the conclusion. When Carrell's character says "they aren't confessing, they're bragging", he's talking about an allusion. The Ponzi schemes here are not allusive. SBF literally bragged about them.
That still doesn't mean they're using the term properly, at least in regards to kind of scam you were describing in your comment, or what that comment's parent was referring to.
"SBF/Matt Levine said it" does not automatically make it true.
To be honest, you don't explain how they are wrong and then tell us that "SBF/Matt Levine" saying it doesn't make it true but both have a public recognisable background in finance, we have absolutely no idea who you are to even judge if you could be right or not.
Instead of debating semantics, enlighten us with how/why they are using it incorrectly and what you mean by this being a pump and dump and not a Ponzi. To me it definitely looks like a Ponzi: money from new entrants in the system go to pay off earlier entrants, a pump and dump from what I know would require SBF/FTX pumping up FTT to then dump it all leaving bag holders in the wake of the crash.
That's fair -- I thought that by highlighting the correct term, against the parent's description with its mislabeling, that would be enough to make the point, especially since a) the issue of "Ponzi" misuse comes up so much, and b) one could just look up the terms and compare. But, to make it explicit:
Ponzi scheme: Taking later entrants' investments to pay earlier investors on the false pretense that the venture's activity generated the returns.
pump-and-dump: Duping others into thinking an asset has value so that it can be resold above its legit worth.
The original description given clearly fits pump-and-dump better[1], since it's based on making an asset seem valuable:
>>laid the Ponzi scheme straight out: scammers make boxes that pay fake coins when you store your money in them, they put so much money into the boxes that the fake coins seem valuable, then they rug pull everyone and move on to the next one.
For tptacek's part, he could have defended his claim by presenting a substantive understanding of the distinction and justified the label in his own words. Or, somehow indicated this was a point of contention at all. Or done anything whatsoever beyond arguing, in effect, "the perp used the label, therefore it must be accurate". That does not advance the discussion, or indicate a prompt for the kind of contribution in the first half of this comment.
