predicting a 10% annual risk of FTX collapsing with FTX investors and the Future Fund (though not customers) losing all of their money,
Do you know if this person made any money off of this prediction? I know that shorting cryptocurrency is challenging, and maybe the annual fee from taking the short side of a perpetual future would be larger than 10%, not sure, but surely once the FTX balance sheet started circulating that should have increased the odds that the collapse would happen on a short time scale enough for this trade to be profitable?[1]
A 10â15% annual risk was predicted by a bunch of people up until late 2021, but Iâm not aware of anyone believing that in late 2022, and Will points out that Metaculus was predicting ~1.3% at the time. I personally updated downwards on the risk because 1) crypto markets crashed, but FTX didnât, which seems like a positive sign, 2) Sequoia invested, 3) they got a GAAP audit.
I donât think there was a great implementation of the trade. Shorting FTT on Binance was probably a decent way to do it, but holding funds on Binance for that purpose is risky and costly in itself.
That said, Iâm aware that some people (not including myself) closely monitored the balance sheet issue and subsequent FTT liquidations, and withdrew their full balances a couple days before the collapse.
Is a 10-15% annual risk of failure for a two-year-old startup alarming? I thought base rates were higher, which makes me think Iâm misunderstanding your comment.
You also mention that the 10% was without loss of costumer funds, but the Metaculus 1.3% was about loss of costumer funds, which seems very different.
10% chance of yearly failure without loss of customer funds seems more than reasonable, even after Sequoia invested, in such a high-variance environment, and not necessarily a red flag.
A 10-15% annual risk of startup failure is not alarming, but a comparable risk of it losing customer funds is. Your comment prompted me to actually check my prediction logs, and I made the following edit to my original comment:
predicting a 10% annual risk of FTX collapsing with FTX investors and the Future Fund (though not customers)FTX investors, the Future Fund, and possibly customers losing all of their money,
[edit: I checked my prediction logs and I actually did predict a 10% annual risk of loss of customer funds in November 2021, though I lowered that to 5% in March 2022. Note that I predicted hacks and investment losses, but not fraud.]
Is the better reference class âtwo-year old startupsâ or âcompanies supposedly worth over $10Bâ or âstartups with over a billion investedâ? I assume a 100 percent investor loss would be rare, on an annualized basis, in the latter twoâbut was included in the original claim. Most two-year startups donât have nearly the amount of investor money on board that FTX did.
Optics would be great on that oneâan EA has insight that thereâs a good chance of FTX collapse (based on not generally-known info /â rumors?), goes out and shorts SamCoins to profit on the collapse! Recall that any FTX collapse would gut the FTT token at least, so there would still be big customer losses.
Gutting the FTT token is customers losing money because of their investing, not customer losses via FTX loss of custodial funds or token, though, isnât it?
Thatâs correct. That being said, wasnât part of the value proposition of FTT that it gave you discounts on FTX? To that extent, it was somewhat like a partial gift certificate for future services. Thatâs still not loss of deposited funds, of course.
In any event, the public would not look kindly on a charitable movement accepting nine figures in donations from a company despite having strong semi-inside-knowledge reasons to believe said company was about to collapse in this manner. I was somewhat surprised to see encouragement to disclose information about anyone who traded on that kind of semi-insider knowledge.
Do you know if this person made any money off of this prediction? I know that shorting cryptocurrency is challenging, and maybe the annual fee from taking the short side of a perpetual future would be larger than 10%, not sure, but surely once the FTX balance sheet started circulating that should have increased the odds that the collapse would happen on a short time scale enough for this trade to be profitable?[1]
I feel like I asked you this before but I forgot the answer, sorry.
I donât think so, because:
A 10â15% annual risk was predicted by a bunch of people up until late 2021, but Iâm not aware of anyone believing that in late 2022, and Will points out that Metaculus was predicting ~1.3% at the time. I personally updated downwards on the risk because 1) crypto markets crashed, but FTX didnât, which seems like a positive sign, 2) Sequoia invested, 3) they got a GAAP audit.
I donât think there was a great implementation of the trade. Shorting FTT on Binance was probably a decent way to do it, but holding funds on Binance for that purpose is risky and costly in itself.
That said, Iâm aware that some people (not including myself) closely monitored the balance sheet issue and subsequent FTT liquidations, and withdrew their full balances a couple days before the collapse.
Is a 10-15% annual risk of failure for a two-year-old startup alarming? I thought base rates were higher, which makes me think Iâm misunderstanding your comment.
You also mention that the 10% was without loss of costumer funds, but the Metaculus 1.3% was about loss of costumer funds, which seems very different.
10% chance of yearly failure without loss of customer funds seems more than reasonable, even after Sequoia invested, in such a high-variance environment, and not necessarily a red flag.
A 10-15% annual risk of startup failure is not alarming, but a comparable risk of it losing customer funds is. Your comment prompted me to actually check my prediction logs, and I made the following edit to my original comment:
Is the better reference class âtwo-year old startupsâ or âcompanies supposedly worth over $10Bâ or âstartups with over a billion investedâ? I assume a 100 percent investor loss would be rare, on an annualized basis, in the latter twoâbut was included in the original claim. Most two-year startups donât have nearly the amount of investor money on board that FTX did.
Thanks! Thatâs helpful. In particular, I wasnât tracking the 2021 versus 2022 thing.
(See my edit)
Optics would be great on that oneâan EA has insight that thereâs a good chance of FTX collapse (based on not generally-known info /â rumors?), goes out and shorts SamCoins to profit on the collapse! Recall that any FTX collapse would gut the FTT token at least, so there would still be big customer losses.
Gutting the FTT token is customers losing money because of their investing, not customer losses via FTX loss of custodial funds or token, though, isnât it?
Thatâs correct. That being said, wasnât part of the value proposition of FTT that it gave you discounts on FTX? To that extent, it was somewhat like a partial gift certificate for future services. Thatâs still not loss of deposited funds, of course.
In any event, the public would not look kindly on a charitable movement accepting nine figures in donations from a company despite having strong semi-inside-knowledge reasons to believe said company was about to collapse in this manner. I was somewhat surprised to see encouragement to disclose information about anyone who traded on that kind of semi-insider knowledge.